Foster Care: State Practices for Assessing Health Needs, Facilitating Service Delivery, and Monitoring Children's Care
Released: 2009-02-06T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Children in foster care tend to exhibit more numerous and serious medical conditions than other children, including mental health problems. Foster care begins when children are removed from their parents or guardians and placed under the responsibility of a state child welfare agency. Removal from the home can occur for several reasons. For example, parental violence, substance abuse, severe depression, or incarceration may have led to the children’s removal from the home. Other children and youth are referred when their own behaviors or conditions are beyond the control of their families or pose a threat to themselves or the community.

The realities of foster care may further contribute to the challenges in meeting these children’s health care needs. Once children are removed from their homes, obtaining information on their health status and health history from their parents or guardians may be challenging. Also, children often move to several different foster homes or treatment facilities during the course of their stay in foster care, which may result in having different health care providers. Changes in placement pose significant challenges for agencies, foster parents, and providers with regard to providing continuity of health care services and maintaining uninterrupted information on children’s medical needs and course of treatment.

Finally, in addition to specific characteristics or circumstances that complicate their care, children in foster care encounter some health care challenges in common with other health care users. Child welfare agencies generally expect that foster parents or other caregivers will recognize when children need medical attention and obtain the needed health services, but such services may be in short supply or difficult to access because of a lack of providers who serve Medicaid patients—particularly for some specialties or geographic areas. Children entering foster care may lack medical care prior to entry, and children with prior medical care may have experienced disruptions in care, changes in providers, and have missing or incomplete records.

Figure 1 illustrates the steps that are typically involved in addressing health needs of children in foster care.

State and Federal Funding for Children in Foster Care

All state child welfare agencies receive federal funds from ACF for children in foster care under two parts of title IV of the Social Security Act. The larger source of federal funds, under title IV-E, provides open-ended reimbursement for a portion of states’ foster care expenses for children meeting federal eligibility criteria, who represented about 43 percent of children in foster care in 2006. Title IV-E provided $4.8 billion to states in 2007 for the federal share of the expense of housing and feeding these children. States cover the remaining costs and 100 percent of the costs to house and feed children in foster care who do not meet federal eligibility criteria. State child welfare agencies also receive funds under title IV-B to provide services to children in foster care and to those remaining in their homes for the purpose of preventing conditions leading to the need to remove children from their homes. In 2007, about $700 million was available under title IV-B. State child welfare agencies cannot use title IV-E or most IV-B funds for the direct provision of health care services. Limited IV-B funds may be used for some health care services but are intended primarily for the support and preservation of families, rather than for children in foster care. Foster children who meet title IV-E eligibility criteria, on the other hand, are explicitly identified as a group that is eligible for coverage under Medicaid.

As a condition of receiving federal funds, state child welfare agencies must agree to meet certain federal requirements, including requirements related to the health of children in foster care. Under both titles IV-B and IV-E, states must submit plans to ACF that contain a number of statutorily required elements. For title IV-E, state agencies must have a written case plan for each child that includes specific health information, such as records of immunizations and medications, to be shared with foster care providers at the time of placement. The agencies must also have standards to ensure that children are provided services to protect their safety and health. Because these standards have not been further defined in statute or regulation, states have some flexibility with respect to their form and content. For safety and health standards, some states have cited standards for licensing foster care facilities, training foster care parents, or credentialing staff.

In recent years, Congress has twice amended title IV-B, subpart 1 to add new state plan requirements related to the health of children served by child welfare agencies. Congress initially required that state plans describe the involvement of physicians and other medical professionals in the assessment and treatment of children in foster care. This requirement was effective with state plans approved by ACF in 2007. In October 2008, as we completed our review, Congress further amended title IV-B, subpart 1 to require state agencies to develop plans for the ongoing oversight and coordination of health care services for children in foster care. This new requirement expanded on the earlier requirement by mandating that the agencies include in their plans schedules for initial and follow-up health screenings that meet reasonable standards of medical practice; steps to ensure continuity of health care services, which may include the establishment of a medical home—a primary health care provider or group—for every child in care; oversight of prescription medications; and information on how children’s needs identified through screenings will be monitored and treated and how their medical information will be updated and appropriately shared—as for example, by using electronic health records. These requirements apply to all children in foster care, regardless of whether or not the children meet federal eligibility criteria.

Federal Oversight and Technical Assistance

Starting in 2001, ACF took a new, results-oriented approach to its oversight of state child welfare programs, focusing on whether children and their families served by these programs achieved positive outcomes. This oversight effort involved four phases of Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR), as shown in figure 2. ACF expects to complete the final phase of the initial round of CFSRs in 2009.

In the second phase of the initial round of the reviews completed in 2004, ACF identified significant performance challenges, particularly with respect to meeting children’s mental health needs. ACF assessed state child welfare agency performance on 45 indicators across a wide range of areas, such as children’s safety and statewide information systems. On the two health indicators addressing physical and mental health, ACF identified 20 states as showing strengths in providing services to meet children’s physical health needs, and 4 states also showed strengths in meeting the mental health needs of children in foster care and children remaining in their homes under agency supervision. Nearly all states were required to implement program improvement plans because they did not show strengths in physical health, mental health, or both. ACF is required by statute to offer technical assistance, to the extent feasible, to help such states develop and implement plans to improve outcomes for children, including health outcomes. When ACF determines that a state has not met the jointly developed goals and action steps identified in these plans within 2 years of approval of the improvement plan, ACF regulations specify that it will withhold a portion of the state’s grant funds. In the course of its oversight, ACF identified several challenges that states faced in meeting the health needs of children in their care, as summarized in table 1.

Medicaid and Health Care Services for Children in Foster Care

Medicaid is the primary health care funding source for most children in foster care. The Medicaid program is administered at the federal level by the HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and is jointly financed by the states and the federal government. All state Medicaid agencies receive federal funds for the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act. Within broad parameters set by federal statute and regulation, state Medicaid agencies are responsible for determining eligibility and establishing the services and payments offered. Although many coverage, eligibility, and administrative decisions are left to individual states, the federal government sets certain requirements for state Medicaid programs, such as coverage of certain screening and treatment services. Children who meet federal eligibility criteria for IV-E foster care are required to be covered by state Medicaid programs under federal law. In addition, states have chosen to extend Medicaid coverage to other children in foster care. In 2004, Medicaid expenditures for children in foster care exceeded $5 billion.

Children in foster care who are enrolled in Medicaid may receive services through one of two distinct service delivery and financing systems— managed care and fee-for-service. Under a capitated managed care model, states contract with a managed care organization and prospectively pay the plans a fixed monthly fee per patient to provide or arrange for most health services. Plans, in turn, pay providers. In the traditional fee-for- service delivery system, the Medicaid program reimburses providers directly and on a retrospective basis for each service delivered.

States are required to offer certain screening and treatment services to children enrolled in Medicaid. Termed Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment services (EPSDT), these screenings must include, but are not limited to, a comprehensive health and developmental history, a comprehensive unclothed physical exam, appropriate immunizations, laboratory tests, and health education. The required services include vision, dental, hearing, and services for other conditions discovered through screenings, regardless of whether these services are typically covered by the state’s Medicaid program for other beneficiaries. The state Medicaid agencies establish standards for the timing and frequency of these screening and treatment services and set their own payment rates for fee-for-service providers of these services. Federal regulations require that EPSDT screening services be provided in accordance with reasonable standards of medical and dental practice determined by the state after consultation with recognized medical and dental organizations involved in child health care.

In addition to EPSDT, states may choose to offer optional Medicaid benefits, such as rehabilitative services and targeted case management for children in foster care. States have used the rehabilitative services option for children in foster care who have mental or developmental problems as a means of providing a wide range of services designed to help them achieve their highest level of functioning. States have used targeted case management in order to provide case management services to a defined group of Medicaid-eligible individuals, such as children in foster care. Such case management activities have included assessing a child’s needs, developing plans to meet those needs, referring a child to services, monitoring the receipt of such services, and ensuring any necessary follow-up care.

Federal Medicaid funds are available for a portion of case management activities, as long as funds are not available from other programs or from other entities, such as other insurers, that would be legally obligated to pay for such services. However, concerns exist that Medicaid funds have been inappropriately used, and CMS has denied payment for services when funds were available from other programs, such as Title IV-E. In 2007, CMS issued rules—an interim final rule for case management services and a proposed rule on Medicaid program coverage for rehabilitative services—that further defined the use of Medicaid funds for these benefits for children in foster care. However, in 2008, Congress passed and the President signed into law a moratorium on certain aspects of the rules that remains in effect until April 1, 2009.

Other HHS Agencies

In addition to ACF and CMS, other agencies within HHS have roles in sustaining the health of foster children through supporting research, providing grants, or offering technical assistance that may assist with providing necessary health care services to children in foster care, as shown below: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is responsible for supporting research designed to improve the quality of healthcare, reduce its costs, address patient safety and medical errors, and broaden access to essential services; the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers programs related to maternal and child health, as well as services specific to particular conditions, such as human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV and AIDS); and SAMHSA funds programs and services for individuals—as well as their families and communities—who suffer from or are at risk for substance abuse or mental health disorders.

Specific Requirements for Health Assessments—and Using Designated Providers to Conduct Them—Are Employed to Identify Children’s Health Care Needs

To help facilitate the timely identification of foster children’s health care needs, all 10 states we examined had adopted specific policies with regard to the timing and scope of assessments, and 4 of these states also reported using designated providers to conduct the assessments. The policies generally call for assessments shortly after children enter care and take one of two forms: (1) a two-stage assessment comprised of an initial screening followed by a comprehensive assessment or (2) a single comprehensive assessment. Most states we selected for study included a requirement for screening of children’s mental health and developmental needs, and most of the states we studied cited substance abuse screenings. Researchers and state officials have suggested that having designated providers conduct assessments may improve the quality and utility of assessment results. State officials report that these assessment practices have allowed them to make more appropriate and lasting placements of children in foster care and also to provide follow-up treatment more quickly than before these practices were in place. Some research also links specific assessment policies to higher rates of follow-up.

Specific Requirements Can Ensure Timely, Appropriate Initial and Comprehensive Assessments

While federal law did not specifically require assessments before fiscal year 2009, the 10 states we reviewed had made assessments of children’s physical health mandatory for all children entering care, as recommended by medical and other professional associations. Because children often enter foster care with serious health conditions and, at times, without easily accessible medical histories, it is important to identify their health needs as quickly as possible. Health or developmental status may be a critical factor in determining the appropriate placement and level of care for children, as in the case of children with HIV or significant behavioral problems. Where there are explicit and comprehensive policies mandating assessments of all children entering care, greater percentages of children are likely to be assessed, according to a survey of a nationally representative sample of child welfare agencies. Further analysis of these survey data showed that agencies with comprehensive developmental screening policies were more likely to evaluate children, refer them to early intervention agencies, and engage in joint planning of health care services.

Officials from the 10 states we reviewed reported using two general approaches to conducting assessments, but all required some health assessment within 30 days of a child’s removal from his or her home. Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York generally conduct screenings or assessments in two stages: (1) an initial screening within 24 hours to 7 days to check for immediate health needs and (2) a later, fuller assessment within 30 days of entry into foster care. Some state officials expressed the view that waiting a while for the fuller assessment may give children the opportunity to adjust to their changed circumstances and for this reason may offer providers a more accurate picture of the children’s health. Additionally, they noted that assessments may be lengthy and require significant time to complete. For example, Florida officials explained that their comprehensive assessment of mental health, development, and substance abuse takes 20 hours to complete, double the amount of time the state previously allotted in order to cover all necessary aspects of care. A second approach to identifying children’s health care needs—used by California, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington—invokes a one-stage assessment process mandating that it be completed within 14 to 30 days of entry into foster care depending on the state. Utah officials explained that the state dropped its earlier requirement for an initial screening followed by another assessment, in part because the results were duplicative. However, the state expects caseworkers to be alert to urgent health needs and arrange treatment as needed. The state has written guidelines advising caseworkers that if there is any sign of abuse or neglect or if the child is ill, the child should be seen by a health care provider within 24 hours.

Once a child enters foster care and receives an initial assessment, state foster care policies in most of the states we selected for study required that ongoing assessments follow the schedules established by state Medicaid agencies for children’s screening, which are based on the children’s age or the time between routine checkups. Six of the 10 states we selected for our study called for children in foster care to receive at least annual screening, either under a separate health standard applicable to foster children or because their EPSDT standard for all Medicaid enrollees called for at least annual screenings, consistent with the 2008 American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation on preventive pediatric care. See table 2 for a summary of the number of EPSDT screens incorporated in the Medicaid EPSDT standard for all children in the Medicaid programs in the 10 states we reviewed.

In addition to policies requiring assessments of children’s physical health, 8 of the 10 states we studied also reported requiring screening or assessments of children’s mental and developmental health shortly after entry into foster care. Research indicates that an estimated 30 to 60 percent of children in foster care may have chronic health conditions, and the proportion estimated to have serious health care needs rises to over 80 percent when behavioral, emotional, and developmental concerns are included. Guidelines issued by professional associations emphasize the importance of assessing mental health and other behavioral health issues for children in foster care. An analysis of the results of ACF reviews conducted between 2001 and 2004 found no evidence of policies requiring an assessment of children’s mental health in most states; in one state, stakeholders noted that children did not get mental health assessments unless there were problems observed. The ACF reviews have helped focus attention on the mental health needs of children in foster care, however, and we found that most of the 10 states we selected for study had adopted policies to screen or assess the mental health and development of children entering foster care. Most states we studied had also adopted policies requiring or recommending screening youth entering foster care for substance abuse. For example, Delaware officials told us that—since February 2006—its initial health screening has required the inclusion of a component alerting staff to any mental health or substance abuse problems for all children 4 through 17 years of age. Other state policies varied in whether or not they included specific time frames. For example, New York has no mandatory time frame for its required mental health assessment, although it is recommended that this be completed within 30 days of placement. State guidance also varies on the tools used for the assessments. In some states, such as Massachusetts, the steps taken by individual health practitioners as part of either (1) the comprehensive screening within the first 30 days or (2) in later Medicaid screenings are considered sufficient to meet the policy requirements. In other cases, states have adopted or are considering adopting specific screening tools. For example, Utah reported the state had specified the tools to be used in assessing the development of children ages 4 months to 5 years. Officials in both California and Oklahoma reported they were working to identify assessment instruments for the early identification of children with mental health or developmental needs.

The Use of Designated Providers Can Increase the Thoroughness of Physical and Mental Health Assessments

Four states we studied reported using designated providers to perform certain initial and comprehensive assessments, which some evidence indicates can increase the consistency and thoroughness with which children’s physical and mental health needs are identified. Illinois, for example, requires that children’s initial health evaluations be conducted by a network of hospital emergency rooms and clinics, while subsequent assessments are generally conducted by a network of community- and facility-based physicians, with foster parents permitted to use others on request. We identified two studies that associated use of designated or specialized health care providers for foster children with higher rates of preventive and specialty care.

With regard to physical assessments, states that identified the use of designated providers to perform initial screens and comprehensive assessments reported that these providers functioned as part of a network of providers, as primary providers in specific locations, or both and, in some cases, that the use of such networks had enhanced the numbers receiving assessments. For example, Florida reported that some of its counties have focused on developing a network of trained providers, while Oklahoma and Utah identified specific locations in urban areas—such as clinics or hospitals—where some children could receive assessments. In most cases, these initial providers could serve as medical homes for the children they assessed. (See table 3 for more information on how states use designated providers.) Some state officials commented that the use of a specific network of physicians also facilitated quality improvement efforts. For example, a physician with Cook County’s Healthworks program noted that the quality of health assessments—once a subject of complaint from child welfare field staff—had improved when assessments were channeled to a network of specific providers that could be supported by targeted training efforts. He noted that the health assessment for a child entering foster care requires a more thorough, detailed approach and level of documentation than that involved in a standard EPSDT well-child exam.

The states shown in the table as using designated providers elaborated on their practices and, in some instances, noted specific strategies that may contribute to providers’ effectiveness: Illinois requires that the initial health screening be completed within an hour of the child’s arrival at the medical facility. Illinois officials reported that appointments for the screening in Cook County are arranged through a toll-free telephone service called HealthLine, which is staffed around the clock by a child welfare contractor who can obtain priority service for children so they do not experience lengthy waits in hospital emergency rooms. Hospital emergency rooms are used for many initial screenings because they are accessible outside of normal business hours, but the comprehensive health assessments generally take place in physicians’ offices because they require more time. Research on children enrolled in the Illinois program has shown that these children experienced higher rates of preventive and necessary specialty care than other children with similar socio-economic characteristics who were not enrolled in the program. Although the research did not evaluate the effectiveness of the program itself, the researchers concluded that the increased attention and oversight of the health care for the children enrolled in the program affected their outcomes.

Oklahoma officials noted that their clinic-based assessment process began with a pediatrician who had experience working with children who had been removed from their homes and placed into shelters. Concerned about the continuity of care for children in these situations, this pediatrician set aside particular times for children in foster care to visit the clinic and see a familiar provider. A second clinic that was opened in another large city is also under the medical direction of a pediatrician familiar with the needs of children in foster care. Officials told us they believe that children’s health care benefits when they are served by providers with knowledge of the foster care population.

In addition to using designated providers for physical health screens and comprehensive assessments, a few states reported using a mental health specialist who worked with caseworkers to conduct assessments. The use of specialists to conduct mental health screenings can be an effective means of identifying children’s mental health needs. One study that surveyed a nationally representative sample of agencies found that involving mental health specialists in assessments resulted in a greater identification of mental health needs, as well as improved follow-up care, than were received by children whose assessments did not include a mental health specialist.

The mental health assessments used by states we selected varied. In some cases, the assessments were comprehensive social assessments that covered areas such as mental health, emotional health, school, work, and community involvement. In other cases, the focus was narrower, covering specific topics such as indicators of mental illness. Washington officials reported that specialized social workers conducted comprehensive assessments using standardized tools that assess several aspects of social and mental health needs, including behavioral, developmental, educational, family, and social issues. For physical or mental health concerns identified during the screening that require treatment, state officials indicated that the social workers refer children to appropriate health care professionals.

Practices to Enhance Access to Services, Coordinate Care, and Monitor Use of Medications Are among Efforts to Ensure Delivery of Health Care to Foster Children

To address the challenge of ensuring delivery of appropriate health care services to children in foster care, several of the states we selected for review adopted practices designed to facilitate access to care, coordinate services, and review medications for children in foster care. Practices relating to access to care included efforts to hasten determination of Medicaid eligibility, implement financial incentives for providers to serve children in foster care, and enhance access to medical specialists for various subgroups of children. Care coordination practices that the selected states identified employed either nurses or other health care managers to help ensure that children in foster care received necessary health care services. Officials of specific states we contacted said that such care coordination had increased rates of immunization, initial assessment, and well-child visits. Finally, officials from six of the states we studied pointed to policies that they had implemented requiring the review of prescriptions for psychotropic medications commonly used to treat mental health disorders for children in foster care.

Practices to Enhance Access to Care Include Streamlined Medicaid Eligibility, Financial Incentives to Providers, and Strategies to Obtain Specialty Care

Among the states we studied that identified a practice state officials believed noteworthy in enhancing access to care, some had identified assigning certain staff—from their Medicaid offices or from their child welfare offices—to ensure that children in foster care were quickly reviewed for Medicaid eligibility. Because the removal of a child from home can change his or her Medicaid eligibility status, some states we contacted had taken steps to save time in certifying Medicaid eligibility and facilitate new foster care beneficiaries’ access to providers. For example, Delaware had assigned two Medicaid staff to foster care cases, while Florida, Utah, and Illinois used staff members from the child welfare offices to determine eligibility for Medicaid. Utah has a written agreement between the state child welfare and Medicaid agencies that specifies that certain staff in Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services will determine Medicaid eligibility for children in foster care. The purpose of this arrangement is to enhance services to children and families, simplify administration, improve accuracy, conserve state resources by avoiding duplication, and maximize legitimate Medicaid funding. In Illinois, children coming into foster care are presumed to be eligible for Medicaid. For purposes of formal eligibility determination, Illinois officials reported that using specialized staff members in the state child welfare agency’s central office to complete the determination had sped up the process. Specifically, they reported that a process that once took 3 to 4 months could now be completed within 4 weeks of issuance of the temporary medical card. Florida officials also reported that their agreement that staff from the child welfare department determine Medicaid eligibility reduced the amount of time required to make these determinations from 18 days to within 24 hours.

Illinois and Washington are among the states that offer financial incentives to providers who treat children in foster care, since providers may be reluctant to serve children in foster care. In Illinois, physicians serving children in foster care are paid a one-time $15 fee to initiate a paper health passport to document the health history and ongoing care of the child. Additionally, the state uses an enhanced payment rate for initial health screenings conducted in hospital emergency rooms. Washington officials reported that the state increased its payments in November 2001 for medical providers who conducted well-child examinations for children in foster care. At the time, these rates were about twice the reimbursement rate paid in other cases. State officials reported that since 2001, other Medicaid rates—such as payments for EPSDT services—have also increased, so that rates for foster care children are no longer twice as high. However, the foster care rates remain equal to or substantially greater than the standard Medicaid rates. In April 2008, Washington officials told us that approximately two-thirds of children received well-child examinations, up from about 17 percent before the state increased the rates in 2001.

Utah, Illinois, and New York have instituted a variety of programs to increase access to medical specialists or subspecialists. Under some circumstances, obtaining specialty care can be difficult for Medicaid- eligible children, and such efforts for children in foster care may be even more difficult if the children have complex health needs or changing placements. These states’ efforts typically focused on specific subgroups of children in foster care, such as those in rural areas, those who need mental health services, and those who would otherwise require institutional care.

Children in Rural Areas: Utah and Illinois have efforts focused on children living in rural areas where it may be harder to find a pediatric health specialist or subspecialist. For example, Utah has eight clinics to which multidisciplinary teams travel in order to provide specialty services for children with special health care needs across rural Utah. State officials told us that in some cases, children are seen more quickly in these locations than in Salt Lake City. Illinois officials reported transportation is available and sometimes is used to get rural foster children to providers, including oral dental surgeons, orthodontists, and child psychiatrists. Despite these efforts, state child welfare officials cited a continuing challenge in obtaining mental health and substance abuse services, and especially child psychiatry for children in Medicaid and other publicly- funded medical care, not just those in foster care. As a result, Illinois has also begun to look at the use of telepsychiatry in one of its downstate regions.

Children Needing Mental Health Services: To address children who are experiencing mental health crises, Illinois developed a psychiatric crisis intervention program with a single, statewide 24-hour, 7-day-a-week crisis hotline. When a person calls the crisis line, a mental health provider is expected to reach the child in crisis within 90 minutes of the call to conduct a screening and determine if the child requires psychiatric hospitalization. Following this decision, the mental health provider is to continue to provide treatment and other service interventions for a minimum of 90 days. State officials reported that this program serves about 18,000 children per year, including all children who receive Medicaid or other public funding for medical care (not just those in foster care). Medicaid covers all the services provided by this program, which began in 2004, on a fee-for-service basis.

Children Who Might Otherwise Require Institutional Care: With respect to difficulty in accessing specialty services, New York launched a program in early 2008 for children in foster care who have developmental disabilities, serious emotional disturbances, and medical problems that are so severe they would otherwise likely be in restrictive and high-cost institutions. By making community-based services available to a fixed number of these children, the state hopes to help them function in family and community settings instead. New York officials reported that when the program is fully implemented after 2011, it will serve approximately 3,000 children in foster care.

Public Health Nurses and Other Health Care Managers Coordinate Care to Help Ensure Health Services Are Delivered Appropriately

Several states we studied discussed their development of the role of health care managers with the goal of improving health care and health outcomes for children in foster care. While all children in foster care have caseworkers, they focus on issues related to the child’s safety and permanency and do not necessarily have medical expertise. Typically, health care managers are nurses who are colocated with the child welfare agency and work with the child’s foster care caseworker. Officials in California told us that the nurses are colocated in the child welfare offices so they can easily talk directly to caseworkers. These nurses may be able to more quickly spot gaps in care than foster care caseworkers because they are trained to understand children’s health and developmental needs, they are able to communicate clearly with health care providers, and they can provide medical guidance to both foster care caseworkers and foster and biological parents. In some states—such as California and Utah—each child is assigned a nurse, while in other states—such as Illinois and Massachusetts—only those children with specific or medically complex needs are individually assigned to a nurse. In some states, public health nurses provided the care coordination services for children in foster care, whereas in Illinois, the state child welfare agency or a local contracting agency served as health care manager. Some positive results in achieving health-related goals for children in foster care had been documented for a health care management effort in New York.

The specific services provided by health care managers varied in the states we contacted, but usually included the development and maintenance of the child’s health history, medical case planning—that is, identifying the child’s medical needs and arranging for receipt of medical services—and identification of medical professionals available to provide services to children in foster care. For example, state officials in Utah told us that the state has 29 Maternal and Child Health agency nurses serving about 90 children each. The nurses may provide medical, mental health, and dental consultation; identify the child’s primary care provider; place the child in the appropriate health plan; gather, evaluate, and document the health history of each child; track ongoing health care; and maintain an up-to- date medical history on each child within an electronic database. Officials in Utah reported that use of public health nurses has reduced errors in transcribing information about medical history and ongoing care into the state’s electronic database. Utah officials also reported that they find that biological parents are more comfortable talking openly with the nurse, who they said biological parents tend to view as an advocate rather than an adversary. According to data provided by state officials, another result of the program is that more children are getting their comprehensive assessments completed than before, and more quickly than required. Specifically, Utah officials reported that about 76 percent of children received these assessments in a timely fashion in 2008, compared to 58 percent in 1998, before the program was implemented. They further noted that these assessments are being conducted in 18 days, on average, rather than taking the full 30 days allowed by state requirements.

Health care managers may also provide other services. Caseworkers in Illinois told us that in medically complex situations, families can be assigned to a regional nurse who can provide recommendations and assist a caseworker in communicating with the family on medical needs. Similarly, in Massachusetts, staff told us that nurses in regional offices provide consultation to staff regarding the medical needs of all children and work with children who have difficult or complex medical needs. In Illinois, officials at one of the privately-run case management programs in Chicago became concerned about immunization and well-child exam completion rates. As a result, they implemented a paper-based reminder- recall system that gives foster parents, providers, and caseworkers information about when and what medical services are needed. Prior to the implementation of the reminder-recall system, officials in one agency that had adopted it told us that 77 percent of children had up-to-date immunizations and 44 percent had received appropriate well-child visits. These officials reported that in 2007, after implementation of this reminder-recall system, 96 percent received appropriate immunizations and 90 percent had received well-child care. We were told that the five community-based medical care management agencies in Cook County used the reminder-recall system. In addition, some counties outside of Cook County have instituted a similar system.

New York conducted a formal evaluation of its health care management project and found that such care coordination had a significant, positive impact on many aspects of care, including the receipt of both initial physical and dental assessments, access to nonpreventative care, and health-related contacts between agency workers and foster parents. However, funding was not available for the state to continue this program when the initial pilot project was completed and the project did not meet nonhealth and well-being related child welfare goals, such as reducing the number of days spent in foster care and increasing the likelihood of leaving foster care for a permanent placement.

Policies Governing the Review of Psychotropic Medications Implemented to Help Ensure Children in Foster Care Receive Appropriate Health Care

Officials in six of the states we selected for interview identified specific policies they had adopted to govern the review of psychotropic medications intended for the treatment of mental health disorders. An Illinois official noted that the use of psychotropic medications is uniquely challenging for children in foster care, given that foster children who change placements often do not have a consistent person to plan treatment, offer consent, and provide oversight. Most of the policies states identified require an extra level of review beyond the person prescribing the medication, either by state officials or local experts. Concerns have been expressed that psychotropic medications have frequently not been tested for their safety and efficacy with children, and one study of children in foster care found that the most frequently prescribed medication was an antipsychotic drug that had not been tested for use by children and adolescents. Some research has also found that use of psychotropic drugs by children in foster care is three to four times greater than by other low-income children insured by Medicaid. Greater prevalence of use is not, by itself, evidence of inappropriate use; children in foster care may be more likely to have conditions for which the drugs are indicated. However, administrative data from one state associated the introduction of its policy with modest decreases in prescribing psychotropic drugs and declines in specific patterns of prescribing, such as prescribing multiple drugs.

Texas has developed a policy that notes the importance of conducting a health history, psychosocial assessment, mental status exam, and physical exam before prescribing psychotropic medications. The policy suggests that alternative interventions should generally be considered before beginning the use of psychotropic medications and outlines specific circumstances under which a case may require further review. Data examining the percentage of children prescribed a psychotropic medication for at least 60 days, the percentage prescribed two or more medications concurrently from the same drug class, and the percentage prescribed five or more medications concurrently showed decreases from fiscal year 2004, before the new policies were implemented, through fiscal year 2007.

Because of concerns raised about the appropriate use of psychotropic medications, California requires judicial approval for their administration to a foster child. The prescribing physician must make the case to a juvenile court judge that the particular medication is appropriate for the given child and that alternatives have been considered. The Judicial Council of California has adopted rules of court to implement this legal requirement. Specifically, these rules require that an application be made to a juvenile court judge requesting the use of psychotropic medication and that the application include the signature of the physician to request the medication’s use; the child’s diagnosis, the specific medication, and dosage recommended for use; the anticipated benefits and possible side effects of the medication; a list of other medications the child is taking, along with a description of possible drug interactions; a description of other treatment plans; and a statement that the child has been informed of the recommended course of treatment with their responses. The court may grant the application or may delegate that authority to the parent if it is found that the parent poses no danger to the child and that the parent has the capacity to understand the request. In an emergency, the rules allow the administration of psychotropic medications without court approval in accordance with existing law, but court approval must be obtained within 2 days.

Other states have worked with universities and local experts to help with the oversight of psychotropic medication use by children in foster care. For example, Illinois has contracted with a university to provide an independent review of each psychotropic medication request to ensure safe and appropriate usage with children in foster care. The request is forwarded to a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who reviews the information and determines whether to approve, deny, or adjust the request. According to state officials, Florida has also worked with a local university to develop a process whereby caregivers of children in foster care receive a consultation with a physician before psychotropic medications are prescribed. The state also has a mandatory preconsent consultation for all children age 5 and under in foster care. The state then tracks information about the medication, such as the prescribing physician, medication, dosage, number of refills, and its purpose. As a result, the state is able to determine the number of children receiving certain types of medication and can then identify areas where there might be concerns about inappropriate use. Oklahoma and New York also work with experts to review and provide training related to the use of psychotropic medications by children in foster care.

Mechanisms for Data Management and Quality Assurance Address Challenges to Documenting and Monitoring Children’s Health Care

To address the challenges of documenting and monitoring children’s health care, some states we studied shared health care data across various state systems to acquire more complete medical histories and used quality assurance mechanisms, such as medical audits or specialized case reviews, to track receipt of services. Efforts to share health care data generally focused on enhancing access to existing health information among parties responsible for the health of children in foster care while meeting requirements for data security and privacy protection. For example, through data sharing with Medicaid and other data sources, Texas has developed an electronic health record—known as the Foster Care Health Passport—that can be viewed by authorized individuals involved in the child’s care through a secure Web site. More commonly, states we studied identified initiatives that also combined data from different sources but did not offer electronic access or provide for any updating at the point of care, relying on paper-based transfers of medical histories and providers’ updates via the foster parents. Quality assurance activities have also made use of electronic systems as a means of monitoring the receipt of services for children in foster care. These efforts can be important to ensuring that individual children receive the appropriate level of services, avoiding duplication of services such as immunizations, and ensuring the receipt of needed services.

Data Sharing with Medicaid and Other Systems May Yield More Complete Medical Information

Some states share data with Medicaid and other state systems, such as immunization registries, in order to obtain more complete medical information than might otherwise be available as a child enters foster care. Basic health information should be included in a written case plan and provided to foster parents before children are placed with them. Obtaining information that is important to a child’s health records can be a complex task, which may involve four or more separate systems (see fig. 3). Additionally, information collected from parents and caregivers may also be of assistance in understanding the needs of a child.

States that pointed to records management systems as a means of developing health history cited the use of an electronic health record— sometimes termed an electronic passport—or other efforts to combine sources of information. Combining these sources of information is important because few children enter foster care with records that accurately identify their health providers, health conditions, or receipt of services. Without these records, their health care may be delayed until records are available, or their care may be compromised. For example, officials in two states told us of cases in which health providers had refused to provide specific treatments to children in foster care because they did not know their histories or did not have medical records available to prevent improper treatment. Similarly, children may miss immunizations, receive duplicate immunizations, or forego necessary medications.

Web-Based Electronic Passport Can Allow Access to Comprehensive Health Information on Individual Children in Foster Care

In April 2008, Texas began implementing an electronic passport to track health data for 29,000 children in foster care. This passport can be updated regularly and is accessed through a secure Web site by foster parents, caseworkers, and health care providers who are responsible for making health decisions on behalf of children. The Foster Care Health Passport is operated by a managed care organization that is under contract with the state Medicaid agency. Texas developed and implemented the Health Passport using funds from the state and CMS. Officials told us that total funding data were not readily available.

When a child enters the Texas foster care system, his or her electronic health record is created by obtaining information from a variety of sources. The Health Passport is initially populated with Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) claims, including pharmacy claims data from the past 2 years for children previously enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. Officials told us that generally, data from these sources are available for a majority, but not all, children who enter foster care. Immunization records are entered through a data sharing arrangement with the state’s immunization registry. Once the electronic health record is created, it can be electronically updated with information on any health care services that were delivered by any foster care health provider in the managed care organization’s network. Claims data are added when the claim is processed, which state officials indicated could take a few weeks or months, noting that providers have 90 days after a medical visit to submit a claim. Services provided outside of the contractor’s network must be added manually through an online form mailed or faxed to the managed care organization. Officials told us that the passport also records behavioral health, dental, and vision services. Finally, officials stated that information in the Health Passport remains accessible statewide, even when the child’s placement changes and the child moves to new foster parents, localities, or health providers. When children leave foster care, the electronic health record is printed out for the child or his caregiver.

While the Health Passport has not been operational long enough to determine its effectiveness, state officials told us that they are working on baseline measures for several variables, such as well-child outcomes, and have developed measures to assess the contractor’s performance.

Officials in several other states we contacted expressed an interest in pursuing the development of an electronic health passport. For example, Illinois uses several data systems to manage Medicaid, foster care, and community health and preventive care for children, but the state is working toward integrating data electronically from the many systems in use, with the ultimate goal being the construction of an electronic passport. Some obstacles to data sharing have included concerns about privacy and security. As states look to sharing individuals’ health data to better serve and treat them, they are also implementing standards governing the transmission of data, policies to ensure that only authorized users have access to records, and provisions to protect individuals’ privacy. CMS has taken steps to provide assistance to states on issues of security and privacy. Several of the states included in this study cited practices they used to create medical histories and agreements they have to address data security and privacy issues.

Other Forms of Data Sharing Can Improve Access to Timely Health Information

Other forms of data sharing use and combine existing record-keeping systems, usually through a combination of electronic matches and paper exchange of data among doctors, foster parents, and the Medicaid or the foster care agency, as shown in the examples below.

Oklahoma officials noted that the state’s efforts to obtain medical information for children entering foster care centered on using Medicaid claims data, which it has been doing on a statewide basis since 2007. State officials reported that the project has been particularly successful because over 90 percent of children entering foster care had some prior Medicaid history and over 80 percent were already on Medicaid when they entered the state’s care. Officials noted that the Medicaid claims data can provide information on developmental assessments, immunizations, as well as the receipt of both physical and mental health services.

In Utah and Illinois, nurses enter children’s health information into the state child welfare agency’s database. In Utah, public health nurses who work in collaboration with child welfare workers provide medical care coordination and record visits, diagnoses, and prescriptions for children in foster care. The child welfare agency in Illinois has a memorandum of agreement with its Medicaid agency to share pharmacy claims data for purposes of identifying doctors prescribing psychotropic medications without consent, and it also electronically obtains immunization data on children in foster care from an immunization registry. Both Utah and Illinois state officials told us that they were in the process of creating an integrated system that will store more complete electronic health records for children in foster care. For example, Illinois child welfare officials reported they were working with other state agencies to be able to pull data from Medicaid claims and other sources.

Massachusetts uses a combination of paper and electronic records. They exchange medical information with foster parents and health care providers on paper, which they then enter into an electronic database.

An official with HHS’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality told us that health information exchanges in Colorado and Indiana are being developed with federal demonstration grants that will include foster children along with other patients. The HHS Inspector General reported in August 2007 that at least 27 states are developing at least partially electronic health records for Medicaid with funds from CMS. These efforts may extend to children in foster care but are not focused on them.

Quality Assurance Activities Can Help Monitor the Receipt of Services

New York, Utah, Delaware, and Illinois specifically pointed to quality assurance activities relevant to monitoring foster children’s receipt of health care services. Such activities can be used to help track the receipt of services by individual children in foster care, including ensuring that individual children are assessed as required and treated appropriately. Monitoring procedures that aggregate information across foster children can help managers ensure that health policies are consistently implemented and having the intended results.

The four states that discussed their quality assurance activities cited practices that included the use of technology and electronic records to collect, analyze, and aggregate health care data, perform medical audits, and conduct evaluations or other checks to ensure the quality of health care services provided to children in foster care. ACF’s reviews found that states with identifiable quality assurance systems that conformed to specific criteria had a higher percentage of cases rated as having met the health needs of children in the states’ custody. Further, ACF’s analysis suggested that states with well-functioning quality assurance systems were more likely to succeed on measures of enhancing a family’s capacity to provide for the needs of their children and ensuring that the children’s physical and mental health needs were being met.

The states that identified relevant quality assurance activities to us provided examples of two approaches: (1) requiring managed care organizations to track and report individual or aggregate data on foster children in their care and (2) conducting medical audits of health records for children in foster care.

With regard to requiring managed care organizations to track and report certain data, officials in Delaware described a new requirement in its contracts with managed care organizations aimed at ensuring that initial health screenings occur and result in the receipt of necessary services. In 2008, Delaware required that contracts with managed care organizations track and report on services rendered following initial health screenings. According to Delaware Medicaid officials, the reports are intended to provide aggregate data on health screenings provided. The officials told us that no specific concern triggered the 2008 quality check on initial health screenings, but officials noted that the state would like to be able to provide aggregate data on the percentage of children in their foster care program who received an initial health assessment within a set number of days. Utah uses a statewide case management system that can generate detailed data on individual children, as well as aggregate reports. Utah officials explained that these aggregate reports had been used to contact medical providers when the state received alerts from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the adverse effects of certain drugs. In this instance, the state sent letters to medical providers urging them to examine specific patients on these medications. Utah officials believed that having a majority of records in electronic form facilitated this effort.

Finally, one city and two states reported the use of medical audits to ensure the receipt and quality of health care provided to children in foster care. For example, New York City uses medical care audits to examine the quality of services provided to the 17,000 children in the city’s foster care program. The city reported conducting two types of medical care audits—a routine medical audit conducted every 2 years and a special medical audit for children with HIV, conducted at least annually. These reviews apply an audit tool that is based on local foster care standards for physical and mental health to assess documentation in medical records of the child’s medical history, consent for treatments, comprehensive physical examinations, diagnostic screenings, immunization history and status, developmental and behavioral health screenings, and the use of psychotropic medications. Reviewers provide their results to foster care agencies, noting findings that must be addressed immediately, as well as a corrective action plan. The audit score is incorporated into a cumulative score on the agency’s performance. Officials in Illinois and Utah also reported the use of medical audits to ensure the delivery of appropriate care.

ACF Offers States Health-Related Technical Assistance as Part of Its Broader Efforts to Improve Delivery of Services

Although states are ultimately responsible for meeting the health needs of children in foster care, HHS is required by law to provide technical assistance to the extent feasible to help states develop and implement plans to improve their performance. ACF officials told us that their emphasis is on providing technical assistance that will increase the capacity of state child welfare agencies over the long term to serve the needs of children in their care. ACF officials point out that they do not expect to provide expertise in the area of health care, but instead to help child welfare agencies carry out their mission within the flexibility that states have.

ACF’s 25 technical assistance centers—including one center that specializes in children’s mental health—offer states a range of assistance, from on-site consultation to Web-based information on promising practices. In some cases, the centers help state child welfare agencies develop strategies to obtain needed services and coordinate their efforts with others involved in health care, such as the agencies responsible for Medicaid, public health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment. These and other agencies are listed among possible stakeholders in ACF’s reviews of state child welfare agencies. ACF and center staff also referred to the assistance that is available from nonfederal sources, such as universities and private foundations.

Technical assistance in the form of on-site consultation is provided at state request, and few states have requested on-site consultation specifically to address health care services for children. On-site consultation generally is requested from ACF regions, coordinated through the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, and tracked by ACF through a dedicated data system. The centers we contacted generally report that they have not been asked to provide consultants on site, but have provided other forms of assistance related to the health care needs of children in foster care.

Table 4 provides summary information on the centers in ACF’s network that either specialize in an aspect of health care or have reported providing some assistance on health care practices through 2008, including one center with funding from HHS’s SAMHSA that focuses on children’s mental health. Examples of some of the work these centers perform in relation to health care are discussed below.

The center that specializes in aspects of children’s health care is the National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health, based at Georgetown University, which helps states and other entities build systems to improve access and outcomes for all children with mental health concerns. The center’s focus is on children who have or are at risk of having emotional disorders, including children in foster care. This focus has been extended to include youth facing mental health problems who have also become involved with substance abuse. The center’s services range from the development and dissemination of various publications to consultation on how to increase a state’s capacity to meet children’s mental health needs. Specifically, at state request, center staff and consultants may work for a year or more with mental health leaders in individual states, often along with child welfare directors, to help these states identify and implement strategies to improve services for children. One staff position at the center has been reserved for a consultant with child welfare expertise. According to center staff, the center provides this type of consultation to an average of 8 to10 states each year and has served 22 states through 2008. To reach more agency personnel, the center holds a training institute every other year for approximately 2,000 to 2,500 attendees that in 2008 offered a series of sessions on partnerships between mental health and child welfare agencies for assessment, early intervention and treatment, support services, and care coordination, among other topics. In carrying out their work, center officials reported coordinating closely with other federally funded centers and organizations, state professional associations, private foundations, and research groups. While currently focused primarily on mental health, the center is also concerned with the integration of primary care and mental health, and prior to implementation of the ACF reviews, received funds from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of HHS’s HRSA to examine promising approaches to providing the full range of health care services for children in foster care. A series of reports were published detailing these approaches that continue to be available through this and other technical centers for use by child welfare agencies in improving their service delivery.

In several other centers, staff described information that they have provided on health care practices, including the following examples: Seven audio conferences on topics, such as the use of psychotropic medications, assessing and treating children up through age 3, and other issues concerning the mental health of children in foster care were developed by the National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning at New York’s Hunter College School of Social Work. Among many sample areas of technical assistance, the center lists health and mental health issues for children and youth in foster care, and to that end, hosts a Webpage devoted to health care with multiple links to other relevant sites.

Sessions regarding the role of clinics dedicated to assessing and treating children in foster care and the options for financing mental health care were featured at the 2007 annual conference for child welfare agency staff arranged by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement at the University of Maine.

The sharing of information on the steps states are taking to extend Medicaid coverage to older youth when they leave foster care is a key area of focus for the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development in Oklahoma. The center connects states that have been successful in this area with states asking for assistance and maintains a list serve for state child welfare agency officials who are responsible for helping youth prepare for independence.

ACF regional and central office staff may also share promising practices that they observe during reviews of state programs. These practices are posted to an ACF Web site and include several related to child and family wellbeing. ACF’s Web site notes that the Children’s Bureau does not make any representations pertaining to the effectiveness of the posted approaches, and ACF officials stated they had taken no further steps to share them and that they had not evaluated specific state practices. Other practices have been shared among states at regional meetings, as in ACF Region VII, where Kansas shared information on its medical passport. Regional staff may also share information on various practices adopted by states within the regions. For example, ACF reported that regional staff members have shared strategies for meeting children’s dental needs, such as using hygienists in Kansas and using a traveling dental van in Missouri. Florida officials reported that they received assistance from ACF on referrals to early intervention programs. New York and Utah officials also acknowledged the help that they received from regional ACF staff.

To assist in states’ efforts to implement improvement strategies, ACF newly funded five centers in fall 2008 that are expected to provide in- depth, long-term consultation and support to states to improve the quality and effectiveness of their child welfare services starting in July 2009. ACF expects the assistance to help build partnerships to deliver a broad array of integrated services that can be individually tailored to meet the diverse needs of children and families served by child welfare agencies, including their physical, mental, and developmental needs as appropriate. As with the older centers, states’ identification of needs and potential strategies will determine the assistance provided. Some assistance with aspects of health care may be available from these centers if states request it, according to ACF officials.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and Human Services for comment and received a written response, which is included in this report as appendix II. HHS provided some additional information on its technical assistance to state foster care agencies, particularly through collaboration between ACF and SAMHSA, to assist states in addressing mental health and substance abuse issues among foster children. The agency also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, state child welfare agencies, and other interested parties. We will provide copies to others on request. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-3674 or brownke@gao.gov or Cynthia A. Bascetta at (202) 512-7114 or bascettac@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 members who made key contributions to this report are also listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Selection of States and Practices for GAO Review

Our study had four objectives. These included describing practices that selected states have adopted to address the challenges of (1) identifying health care needs, (2) ensuring delivery of appropriate health services, and (3) documenting and monitoring the health care of children in foster care. In addition, we describe technical assistance the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) provides to states to help improve their performance in providing for the health care needs of these children.

To gain an initial understanding of the types of practices states have adopted, we reviewed relevant reports and interviewed various experts and researchers. We reviewed information on promising practices listed on ACF’s Web site that were identified during ACF’s reviews of state performance and a list of state practices that ACF provided to us. We also interviewed several prominent child welfare experts and researchers, including individuals affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Center for Health Care Strategies, the Chapin Hall Center for Children, the Georgetown University Child Development Center, and the National Academy for State Health Policy to obtain additional information on practices to improve the delivery of health care to children in foster care.

To update information on practices described in available publications and to obtain additional examples that may not have been reported in publications, we e-mailed requests for information on current practices they believed were noteworthy efforts to address children’s health care needs to representatives of child welfare agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia. To minimize the burden on state representatives, we suggested that they could limit the number of practices they described. We sent our e-mail requests in October 2007, and representatives for 42 of the 51 child welfare agencies provided responses.

To gather more detailed examples of these practices, we selected 10 state child welfare agencies for further review—conducting visits to 3 states and telephone interviews with 7. In selecting states and their practices for further review, we considered descriptions of each state’s practices obtained from the states and other research. For practical reasons, in order to collect sufficient examples from each category while limiting the number of distinct states we would contact, we also considered whether a state had more than one practice it considered noteworthy and whether it encompassed practices in at least two of our five broad categories. We also gave some weight to the level of context and information the state had provided about its practices and generally limited our consideration of practices to those that states indicated they had begun to implement. In addition, we made efforts to include states that had achieved a strong rating on the ACF reviews for children’s physical and mental health indicators and to achieve some distribution in geographic location and administrative structure.

For 3 of the 10 states selected—Illinois, New York, and Utah—we conducted site visits and interviewed officials of state child welfare agencies and state Medicaid Offices, and when possible, health care providers, interest groups, and foster care parents. For seven states—California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington—we conducted interviews by telephone with officials of each state’s child welfare agency and, in some instances, officials of state Medicaid Offices.

Key characteristics of the selected states are shown in table 5. Collectively, the states we contacted account for 53 percent of federal IV-E funds distributed in fiscal year 2007.

For our visits and telephone interviews, we developed semistructured interview guides for state and local child welfare agencies, including caseworkers, state Medicaid offices, interest groups, and foster parents. In addition, we obtained from officials of state child welfare agencies detailed information on their identified practices, including the dates of operation; numbers of children served; size of jurisdiction covered; variety of services offered; funding mechanisms used; outcomes, if any, reported; and whether any evaluative studies had been conducted or other documents prepared that discussed the effectiveness of the practice.

We conducted our work from November 2007 to January 2009 in accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman and Carolyn L. Yocom (Assistant Directors), Patricia Elston, Carolyn Feis Korman, Jacqueline Harpp, Darryl Joyce, Jasleen Modi, Alexandra Edwards, Alison Goetsch, Kevin Milne, Mimi Nguyen, James Rebbe, Jay Smale, and Charlie Willson made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

Medicare Physician Payment: Care Coordination Programs Used in Demonstration Show Progress, but Wider Use of Payment Approach May Be Limited. GAO-08-65. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2008.

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Medicaid Program; Elimination of Reimbursement Under Medicaid for School Administration Expenditures and Costs Related to Transportation of School-Age Children Between Home and School. GAO-08-394R. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2008.

Child Welfare: Additional Federal Action Could Help States Address Challenges in Providing Services to Children and Families. GAO-07-850T. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2007.

Medicaid: Concerns Remain about Sufficiency of Data for Oversight of Children’s Dental Services. GAO-07-826T. Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2007.

Pediatric Drug Research: Studies Conducted Under Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. GAO-07-557. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2007.

Children’s Health Insurance: States’ SCHIP Enrollment and Spending and Considerations for Reauthorization. GAO-07-558T. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2007.

Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Long-standing Service-Level and Workforce Challenges. GAO-07-75. Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2006.

Foster Care and Adoption Assistance: Federal Oversight Needed to Safeguard Funds and Ensure Consistent Support for States’ Administrative Costs. GAO-06-649. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.

Administrative Expenditures and Federal Matching Rates of Selected Support Programs. GAO-05-839R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005.

Medicaid Financing: States’ Use of Contingency-Fee Consultants to Maximize Federal Reimbursements Highlights Need for Improved Federal Oversight. GAO-05-748. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.

Medicaid: States’ Efforts to Maximize Federal Reimbursements Highlight Need for Improved Federal Oversight. GAO-05-836T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.

Child And Family Services Reviews: States and HHS Face Challenges in Assessing and Improving State Performance. GAO-04-781T. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2004.

Child And Family Services Reviews: Better Use of Data and Improved Guidance Could Enhance HHS’s Oversight of State Performance. GAO-04-333. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2004.

Medicaid and SCHIP: States’ Premium and Cost Sharing Requirements for Beneficiaries. GAO-04-491. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2004.

SCHIP: HHS Continues to Approve Waivers That Are Inconsistent with Program Goals. GAO-04-166R. Washington, D.C.: January 5, 2004.

Child Welfare: States Face Challenges in Developing Information Systems and Reporting Reliable Child Welfare Data. GAO-04-267T. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2003.

Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved. GAO-03-809. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003.

Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services. GAO-03-397. Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2003.

Medicaid and SCHIP: States Use Varying Approaches to Monitor Children’s Access to Care. GAO-03-222. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2003.

Mental Health Services: Effectiveness of Insurance Coverage and Federal Programs for Children Who Have Experienced Trauma Largely Unknown. GAO-02-813. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2002.

Medicaid and SCHIP: States’ Enrollment and Payment Policies Can Affect Children’s Access to Care. GAO-01-883. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2001.

Medicaid: Stronger Efforts Needed to Ensure Children’s Access to Health Screening Services. GAO-01-749. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2001.

Foster Care: Health Needs of Many Young Children Are Unknown And Unmet. GAO/HEHS-95-114. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 1995.