Children's Health Insurance: States' SCHIP Enrollment and Spending Experiences and Considerations for Reauthorization
Released: 2007-03-01T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In general, SCHIP funds are targeted to uninsured children in families whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid but are at or below 200 percent of FPL. Recognizing the variability in state Medicaid programs, federal SCHIP law allows a state to cover children in families with incomes up to 200 percent of FPL or 50 percentage points above its existing Medicaid eligibility standard as of March 31, 1997. Additional flexibility regarding eligibility levels is available, however, as Medicaid and SCHIP provide some flexibility in how a state defines income for purposes of eligibility determinations. Congress appropriated approximately $40 billion over 10 years (from fiscal years 1998 through 2007) for distribution among states with approved SCHIP plans. Allocations to states are based on a formula that takes into account the number of low- income children in a state. In general, states that choose to expand Medicaid to enroll eligible children under SCHIP must follow Medicaid rules, while separate child health programs have additional flexibilities in benefits, cost-sharing, and other program elements. Under certain circumstances, states may also cover adults under SCHIP.

SCHIP Allotments to States

SCHIP allotments to states are based on an allocation formula that uses (1) the number of children, which is expressed as a combination of two estimates—the number of low-income children without health insurance and the number of all low-income children, and (2) a factor representing state variation in health care costs. Under federal SCHIP law and subject to certain exceptions, states have 3 years to use each fiscal year’s allocation, after which any remaining funds are redistributed among the states that had used all of that fiscal year’s allocation. Federal law does not specify a redistribution formula but leaves it to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to determine an appropriate procedure for redistribution of unused allocations. Absent congressional action, states are generally provided 1 year to spend any redistributed funds, after which time funds may revert to the U.S. Treasury. Each state’s SCHIP allotment is available as a federal match based on state expenditures. SCHIP offers a strong incentive for states to participate by providing an enhanced federal matching rate that is based on the federal matching rate for a state’s Medicaid program—for example, the federal government will reimburse at a 65 percent match under SCHIP for a state receiving a 50 percent match under Medicaid.

There are different formulas for allocating funds to states, depending on the fiscal year. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the formula used estimates of the number of low-income uninsured children to allocate funds to states. For fiscal year 2000, the formula changed to include estimates of the total number of low-income children as well.

SCHIP Design Choices

SCHIP gives the states the choice of three design approaches: (1) a Medicaid expansion program, (2) a separate child health program with more flexible rules and increased financial control over expenditures, or (3) a combination program, which has both a Medicaid expansion program and a separate child health program. Initially, states had until September 30, 1998, to select a design approach, submit their SCHIP plans, and obtain HHS approval in order to qualify for their fiscal year 1998 allotment. With an approved state child health plan, a state could begin to enroll children and draw down its SCHIP funds.

The design approach a state chooses has important financial and programmatic consequences, as shown below.

Expenditures. In separate child health programs, federal matching funds cease after a state expends its allotment, and non-benefit-related expenses (for administration, direct services, and outreach) are limited to 10 percent of claims for services delivered to beneficiaries. In contrast, Medicaid expansion programs may continue to receive federal funds for benefits and for non-benefit-related expenses at the Medicaid matching rate after states exhaust their SCHIP allotments.

Enrollment. Separate child health programs may establish separate eligibility rules and establish enrollment caps. In addition, a separate child health program may limit its own annual contribution, create waiting lists, or stop enrollment once the funds it budgeted for SCHIP are exhausted. A Medicaid expansion must follow Medicaid eligibility rules regarding income, residency, and disability status, and thus generally cannot limit enrollment.

Benefits. Separate child health programs must use, for example, benchmark benefit standards that use specified private or public insurance plans as the basis for coverage. However, Medicaid—and therefore a Medicaid expansion—must provide coverage of all benefits available to the Medicaid population, including certain services for children. In particular, Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) requires states to cover treatments or stabilize conditions diagnosed during routine screenings—regardless of whether the benefit would otherwise be covered under the state’s Medicaid program. A separate child health program does not require EPSDT coverage.

Beneficiary cost-sharing. Separate child health programs may impose limited cost-sharing—through premiums, copayments, or enrollment fees—for children in families with incomes above 150 percent of FPL up to 5 percent of family income annually. Since the Medicaid program did not previously allow cost-sharing for children, a Medicaid expansion program under SCHIP would have followed this rule.

SCHIP Coverage of Adults

In general, states may cover adults under the SCHIP program under two key approaches.

First, federal SCHIP law allows the purchase of coverage for adults in families with children eligible for SCHIP under a waiver if a state can show that it is cost-effective to do so and demonstrates that such coverage does not result in “crowd-out”—a phenomenon in which new public programs or expansions of existing public programs designed to extend coverage to the uninsured prompt some privately insured persons to drop their private coverage and take advantage of the expanded public subsidy. The cost- effectiveness test requires the states to demonstrate that covering both adults and children in a family under SCHIP is no more expensive than covering only the children. The states may also elect to cover children whose parents have access to employer-based or private health insurance coverage by using SCHIP funding to subsidize the cost.

Second, under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, states may receive approval to waive certain Medicaid or SCHIP requirements or authorize Medicaid or SCHIP expenditures. The Secretary of Health and Human Services may approve waivers of statutory requirements or authorize expenditures in the case of experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects that are likely to promote program objectives. In August 2001, HHS indicated that it would allow states greater latitude in using section 1115 demonstration projects (or waivers) to modify their Medicaid and SCHIP programs and that it would expedite consideration of state proposals. One initiative, the Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability Initiative (HIFA), focuses on proposals for covering more uninsured people while at the same time not raising program costs. States have received approval of section 1115 waivers that provide coverage of adults using SCHIP funding.

SCHIP Enrollment Has Grown Rapidly; States’ Rates of Uninsured Children Vary Significantly

SCHIP enrollment increased rapidly over the first years of the program, and has stabilized for the past several years. In 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, 4.0 million individuals were enrolled during the month of June, while the total enrollment count—which represents a cumulative count of individuals enrolled at any time during fiscal year 2005—was 6.1 million. Of these 6.1 million enrollees, 639,000 were adults. Because SCHIP requires that applicants are first screened for Medicaid eligibility, some states have experienced increases in their Medicaid programs as well, further contributing to public health insurance coverage of low-income children during this same period. Based on a 3-year average of 2003 through 2005 Current Population Survey (CPS) data, the percentage of uninsured children varied considerably by state, with a national average of 11.7 percent.

SCHIP annual enrollment grew quickly from program inception through 2002 and then stabilized at about 4 million from 2003 through 2005, on the basis of a point-in-time enrollment count. Total enrollment, which counts individuals enrolled at any time during a particular fiscal year, showed a similar pattern of growth and was over 6 million as of June 2005 (see fig. 1). Generally, point-in-time enrollment is a subset of total enrollment, as it represents the number of individuals enrolled during a particular month. In contrast, total enrollment includes an unduplicated count of any individual enrolled at any time during the fiscal year; thus the data are cumulative, with new enrollments occurring monthly.

Our prior work has shown that certain obstacles can prevent low-income families from enrolling their children into public programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP. Primary obstacles included families’ lack of knowledge about program availability and that, even when children were eligible to participate, complex eligibility rules and documentation requirements complicated the application process.

During the early years of SCHIP program operation, we found that many states developed and deployed outreach strategies in an effort to overcome these enrollment barriers. Many states adopted innovative outreach strategies and simplified and streamlined their enrollment processes in order to reach as many eligible children as possible. Examples follow.

States launched ambitious public education campaigns that included multimedia campaigns, direct mailings, and the widespread distribution of applications.

To overcome the barrier of a long, complicated SCHIP eligibility determination process, states reduced verification and documentation requirements that exceeded federal requirements, shortened the length of applications, and used joint SCHIP-Medicaid applications.

States also located eligibility workers in places other than welfare offices—schools, child care centers, churches, local tribal organizations, and Social Security offices—to help families with the initial processing of applications.

States eased the process by which applicants reapplied for SCHIP at the end of their coverage period. For example, one state mailed families a summary of the information on their last application, and asked families to update any changes to the information.

Because states must also screen for Medicaid eligibility before enrolling children into SCHIP, some states have noted increased enrollment in Medicaid as a result of SCHIP. For example, Alabama reported a net increase of approximately 121,000 children in Medicaid since its SCHIP program began in 1998. New York reported that, for fiscal year 2005, approximately 204,000 children were enrolled in Medicaid as a result of outreach activities, compared with 618,973 children enrolled in SCHIP. In contrast, not all states found that their Medicaid enrollment was significantly affected by SCHIP. For example, Idaho reported that a negligible number of children were found eligible for Medicaid as a result of outreach related to its SCHIP program. Maryland identified an increase of 0.2 percent between June 2004 and June 2005.

Based on a 3-year average of 2003 through 2005 CPS data, the percentage of uninsured children varied considerably by state and had a national average of 11.7 percent. The percentage of uninsured children ranged from 5.6 percent in Vermont to 20.4 percent in Texas (see fig. 2). According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of 2005 CPS data, the percentage of uninsured children was higher in the southern (13.7 percent) and western (13.8 percent) regions of the United States compared with children living in northeastern (8.5 percent) and midwestern (8.2 percent) regions. Nearly 40 percent of the nation’s uninsured children lived in three of the most populous states—California, Florida, and Texas—each of which had percentages of uninsured children above the national average.

Variations across states in rates of uninsured children may be linked to a number of factors, including the availability of employer-sponsored coverage. We have previously reported that certain types of workers were less likely to have had access to employer-sponsored insurance and thus were more likely to be uninsured. In particular, those working part- time, for small firms, or in certain industries such as agriculture or construction, were among the most likely to be uninsured. Additionally, states with high uninsured rates and those with low rates often were distinct with regard to several characteristics. For example, states with higher than average uninsured rates tended to have higher unemployment and proportionally fewer employers offering coverage to their workers. Small employers—those with less than 10 employees—were much less likely to offer health insurance to their employees than larger employers.

States’ SCHIP Programs Reflect a Variety of Approaches to Providing Health Care Coverage

States’ SCHIP programs reflect the flexibility allowed in structuring approaches to providing health care coverage, including their choice among three program designs—Medicaid expansions, separate child health programs, and combination programs, which have both a Medicaid expansion and a separate child health program component. As of fiscal year 2005, 41 state SCHIP programs covered children in families whose incomes are up to 200 percent of FPL or higher, with 7 of the 41 states covering children in families whose incomes are at 300 percent of FPL or higher. States generally imposed some type of cost-sharing in their programs, with 39 states charging some combination of premiums, copayments, or enrollment fees, compared with 11 states that did not charge cost-sharing. Nine states reported operating premium assistance programs that use SCHIP funding to subsidize the cost of premiums for private health insurance coverage. As of February 2007, we identified 14 states with approved section 1115 waivers to cover adults, including parents and caretaker relatives, pregnant women, and, in some cases, childless adults.

States Employ All Three Design Approaches, with Coverage Generally Extending to 200 Percent of FPL

As of July 2006, of the 50 states currently operating SCHIP programs, 11 states had Medicaid expansion programs, 18 states had separate child health programs, and 21 states had a combination of both approaches (see fig. 3). When the states initially designed their SCHIP programs, 27 states opted for expansions to their Medicaid programs. Many of these initial Medicaid expansion programs served as “placeholders” for the state—that is, minimal expansions in Medicaid eligibility were used to guarantee the 1998 fiscal year SCHIP allocation while allowing time for the state to plan a separate child health program. Other initial Medicaid expansions— whether placeholders or part of a combination program—also accelerated the expansion of coverage for children aged 14 to 18 up to 100 percent of FPL, which states are already required to cover under federal Medicaid law.

A state’s starting point for SCHIP eligibility is dependent upon the eligibility levels previously established in its Medicaid program. Under federal Medicaid law, all state Medicaid programs must cover children aged 5 and under if their family incomes are at or below 133 percent of FPL and children aged 6 through 18 if their family incomes are at or below 100 percent of FPL. Some states have chosen to cover children in families with higher income levels in their Medicaid programs. Each state’s starting point essentially creates a “corridor”—generally, SCHIP coverage begins where Medicaid ends and then continues upward, depending on each state’s eligibility policy.

In fiscal year 2005, 41 states used SCHIP funding to cover children in families with incomes up to 200 percent of FPL or higher, including 7 states that covered children in families with incomes up to 300 percent of FPL or higher. In total, 27 states provided SCHIP coverage for children in families with incomes up to 200 percent of FPL, which was $38,700 for a family of four in 2005. Another 14 states covered children in families with incomes above 200 percent of FPL, with New Jersey reaching as high as 350 percent of FPL in its separate child health program. Finally, 9 states set SCHIP eligibility levels for children in families with incomes below 200 percent of FPL. For example, North Dakota covered children in its separate child health program up to 140 percent of FPL. (See fig. 4.) (See app. I for the SCHIP upper income eligibility levels by state, as a percentage of FPL.)

Separate Child Health Program Benefit Packages Reflect the Full Range of SCHIP Options

Under federal SCHIP law, states with separate child health programs have the option of using different bases for establishing their benefit packages. Separate child health programs can choose to base their benefit packages on (1) one of several benchmarks specified in federal SCHIP law, such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) or state employee coverage; (2) a benchmark-equivalent set of services, as defined under federal law; (3) coverage equivalent to state-funded child health programs in Florida, New York, or Pennsylvania; or (4) a benefit package approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (see table 1).

In some cases, separate child health programs have changed their benefit packages, adding and removing benefits over time, as follows.

In 2003, Texas discontinued dental services, hospice services, skilled nursing facilities coverage, tobacco cessation programs, vision services, and chiropractic services. In 2005, the state added many of these services (chiropractic services, hospice services, skilled nursing facilities, tobacco cessation services, and vision care) back into the SCHIP benefit package and increased coverage of mental health and substance abuse services.

In January 2002, Utah changed its benefit structure for dental services, reducing coverage for preventive (cleanings, examinations, and x-rays) and emergency dental services in order to cover as many children as possible with limited funding. In September 2002, the dental benefit package was further restructured to include dental coverage for accidents, as well as fluoride treatments and sealants.

Most SCHIP Programs Require Cost-Sharing, but Amounts Charged Vary Considerably

In 2005, most states’ SCHIP programs required families to contribute to the cost of care with some kind of cost-sharing requirement. The two major types of cost-sharing—premiums and copayments—can have different behavioral effects on an individual’s participation in a health plan. Generally, premiums are seen as restricting entry into a program, whereas copayments affect the use of services within the program. There is research indicating that if cost-sharing is too high, or imposed on families whose income is too low, it can impede access to care and create financial burdens for families.

In 2005, states’ annual SCHIP reports showed that 39 states had some type of cost-sharing—premiums, copayments, or enrollment fees—while 11 states reported no cost-sharing in their SCHIP programs. Overall, 16 states charged premiums and copayments, 14 states charged premiums only, and 9 states charged copayments only (see fig. 5).

Cost-sharing occurred more frequently in the separate child health programs than in Medicaid expansion programs. For example, 8 states with Medicaid expansion programs had cost-sharing requirements, compared with 34 states operating separate child health program components. The amount of premiums charged varied considerably among the states that charged cost-sharing. For example, premiums ranged from $5.00 per family per month for children in families with incomes from 150 to 200 percent of FPL in Michigan to $117 per family per month for children in families with incomes from 300 to 350 percent of FPL in New Jersey. Federal SCHIP law prohibits states from imposing cost-sharing on SCHIP-eligible children that totals more than 5 percent of family income annually. In addition, cost-sharing for children may be imposed on the basis of family income. For example, we earlier reported that in 2003, Virginia SCHIP copayments for children in families with incomes from 133 percent to below 150 percent of FPL were $2 per physician visit or per prescription and $5 for services for children in families with higher incomes.

Few States Offer Premium Assistance Programs

In fiscal year 2005, nine states reported operating premium assistance programs (see table 2), but implementation remains a challenge. Enrollment in these programs varied across the states. For example, Louisiana reported having under 200 enrollees and Oregon reported having nearly 6,000 enrollees. To be eligible for SCHIP, a child must not be covered under any other health coverage program or have private health insurance. However, some uninsured children may live in families with access to employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. Therefore, states may choose to establish premium assistance programs, where the state uses SCHIP funds to contribute to health insurance premium payments. To the extent that such coverage is not equivalent to the states’ Medicaid or SCHIP level of benefits, including limited cost-sharing, states are required to pay for supplemental benefits and cost-sharing to make up this difference. Under certain section 1115 waivers, however, states have not been required to provide this supplemental coverage to participants.

Several states reported facing challenges implementing their premium assistance programs. Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia cited administration of the program as labor intensive. For example, Massachusetts noted that it is a challenge to maintain current information on program participants’ employment status, choice of health plan, and employer contributions, but such information is needed to ensure accurate premium payments. Two states—Rhode Island and Wisconsin—noted the challenges of operating premium assistance programs, given changes in employer-sponsored health plans and accompanying costs. For example, Rhode Island indicated that increases in premiums are being passed to employees, which makes it more difficult to meet cost-effectiveness tests applicable to the purchase of family coverage.

Adult Coverage in SCHIP Is Primarily Accomplished through Waivers

States opting to cover adult populations using SCHIP funding may do so under an approved section 1115 waiver. As of February 2007, we identified 14 states with approved waivers to cover at least one of three categories of adults: parents of eligible Medicaid and SCHIP children, pregnant women, and childless adults. (See table 3.) The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), however, has prohibited the use of SCHIP funds to cover nonpregnant childless adults. Effective October 1, 2005, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not approve new section 1115 waivers that use SCHIP funds for covering nonpregnant childless adults. However, waivers for covering these adults that were approved prior to this date are allowed to continue until the end of the waiver. Additionally, the Secretary may continue to approve section 1115 waivers that extend SCHIP coverage to pregnant adults, as well as parents and other caretaker relatives of children eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP.

States’ SCHIP Spending Was Initially Low but Now Threatens to Exceed Available Funding

SCHIP program spending was low initially, as many states did not implement their programs or report expenditures until 1999 or later, but spending was much higher in the program’s later years and now threatens to exceed available funding. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, states together spent more federal dollars than they were allotted for the year and thus relied on the 3-year availability of SCHIP allotments or on redistributed SCHIP funds to cover additional expenditures. But as spending has grown, the pool of funds available for redistribution has shrunk. Some states consistently spent more than their allotted funds, while other states consistently spent less. Overall, 18 states were projected to have shortfalls—that is, they were expected to exhaust available funds, including current and prior-year allotments—in at least 1 year from 2005 through 2007. To cover projected shortfalls that several states faced, Congress appropriated an additional $283 million for fiscal year 2006. As of January 2007, 14 states are projected to exhaust their allotments in fiscal year 2007.

Program Spending, Low in SCHIP’s Early Years, Exceeded Allotments by 2002

SCHIP program spending began low, but by fiscal year 2002, states’ aggregate annual spending from their federal allotments exceeded their annual allotments. Spending was low in the program’s first 2 years because many states did not implement their programs or report expenditures until fiscal year 1999 or later. Combined federal and state spending was $180 million in 1998 and $1.3 billion in 1999. However, by the end of the program’s third fiscal year (2000), all 50 states and the District of Columbia had implemented their programs and were drawing down their federal allotments. Since fiscal year 2002, SCHIP spending has grown by an average of about 10 percent per year. (See fig. 6.)

From fiscal year 1998 through 2001, annual federal SCHIP expenditures were well below annual allotments, ranging from 3 percent of allotments in fiscal year 1998 to 63 percent in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, the states together spent more federal dollars than they were allotted for the year, in part because total allotments dropped from $4.25 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $3.12 billion in fiscal year 2002, marking the beginning of the so-called “SCHIP dip.” However, even after annual SCHIP appropriations increased in fiscal year 2005, expenditures continued to exceed allotments (see fig. 7). Generally, states were able to draw on unused funds from prior years’ allotments to cover expenditures incurred in a given year that were in excess of their allotment for that year, because, as discussed earlier, the federal SCHIP law gave states 3 years to spend each annual allotment. In certain circumstances, states also retained a portion of unused allotments.

States that have outspent their annual allotments over the 3-year period of availability have also relied on redistributed SCHIP funds to cover excess expenditures. But as overall spending has grown, the pool of funds available for redistribution has shrunk from a high of $2.82 billion in unused funds from fiscal year 1999 to $0.17 billion in unused funds from fiscal year 2003. Meanwhile, the number of states eligible for redistributions has grown from 12 states in fiscal year 2001 to 40 states in fiscal year 2006. (See fig. 8.)

Congress has acted on several occasions to change the way SCHIP funds are redistributed. In fiscal years 2000 and 2003, Congress amended statutory provisions for the redistribution and availability of unused SCHIP allotments from fiscal years 1998 through 2001, reducing the amounts available for redistribution and allowing states that had not exhausted their allotments by the end of the 3-year period of availability to retain some of these funds for additional years. Despite these steps, $1.4 billion in unused SCHIP funds reverted to the U.S. Treasury by the end of fiscal year 2005.

Congress has also appropriated additional funds to cover states’ projected SCHIP program shortfalls. The DRA included a $283 million appropriation to cover projected shortfalls for fiscal year 2006. CMS divided these funds among 12 states as well as the territories.

In the beginning of fiscal year 2007, Congress acted to redistribute unused SCHIP allotments from fiscal year 2004 to states projected to face shortfalls in fiscal year 2007. The National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006 makes these funds available to states in the order in which they experience shortfalls. In January 2007, CRS projected that although 14 states will face shortfalls, the $147 million in unused fiscal year 2004 allotments will be redistributed to the five states that are expected to experience shortfalls first. The NIH Reform Act also created a redistribution pool of funds by redirecting fiscal year 2005 allotments from states that at midyear (March 31, 2007) have more than twice the SCHIP funds they are projected to need for the year.

Some States Consistently Spent More than Their Allotted Funds

Some states consistently spent more than their allotted funds, while other states consistently spent less. From fiscal years 2001 through 2006, 40 states spent their entire allotments at least once, thereby qualifying for redistributions of other states’ unused allotments; 11 states spent their entire allotments in at least 5 of the 6 years that funds were redistributed. Moreover, 18 states were projected to face shortfalls—that is, they were expected to exhaust available funds, including current and prior-year allotments—in at least 1 of the final 3 years of the program. (See fig. 9.) As of January 2007, 14 states were projected to exhaust their allotments in fiscal year 2007.

When we compared the 18 states that were projected to have shortfalls with the 32 states that were not, we found that the shortfall states were more likely to have a Medicaid component to their SCHIP program, to have a SCHIP eligibility corridor broader than the median, and to cover adults in SCHIP under section 1115 waivers (see table 4). It is unclear, however, to what extent these characteristics contributed to states’ overall spending experiences with the program, as many other factors have also affected states’ program balances, including prior coverage of children under Medicaid, and SCHIP eligibility criteria, benefit packages, enrollment policies, outreach efforts, and payment rates to providers. In addition, we and others have noted that the formula for allocating funds to states has flaws that led to underestimates of the number of eligible children in some states and thus underfunding. Fifteen of the 18 shortfall states (83 percent) had Medicaid expansion programs or combination programs that included Medicaid expansions, which generally follow Medicaid rules, such as providing the full Medicaid benefit package and continuing to provide coverage to all eligible individuals even after the states’ SCHIP allotments are exhausted. The shortfall states tended to have a broader eligibility corridor in their SCHIP programs, indicating that, on average, the shortfall states covered children in SCHIP from lower income levels, from higher income levels, or both. For example, 33 percent of the shortfall states covered children in their SCHIP programs above 200 percent of FPL, compared with 25 percent of the nonshortfall states. Finally, 6 of the 18 shortfall states (33 percent) were covering adults in SCHIP under section 1115 waivers by the end of fiscal year 2006, compared with 6 of the 32 nonshortfall states (19 percent).

On average, the shortfall states that covered adults began covering them earlier than nonshortfall states and enrolled a higher proportion of adults. At the end of fiscal year 2006, 12 states covered adults under section 1115 waivers using SCHIP funds. Five of these 12 states began covering adults before fiscal year 2003, and all 5 states faced shortfalls in at least 1 of the final 3 years of the program. In contrast, none of the 4 states that began covering adults with SCHIP funds in the period from fiscal year 2004 through 2006 faced shortfalls. On average, the shortfall states covered adults more than twice as long as nonshortfall states (5.1 years compared with 2.3 years by the end of fiscal year 2006).

Shortfall states also enrolled a higher proportion of adults. Nine states, including six shortfall states, covered adults using SCHIP funds throughout fiscal year 2005. In these nine states, adults accounted for an average of 45 percent of total enrollment. However, in the shortfall states, the average proportion was more than twice as high as in nonshortfall states. Adults accounted for an average of 55 percent of enrollees in the shortfall states, compared with 24 percent in the nonshortfall states. (See table 5.)

While analyses of states as a group reveal some broad characteristics of states’ programs, examining the experiences of individual states offers insights into other factors that have influenced states’ program balances. States themselves have offered a variety of reasons for shortfalls and surpluses. These examples, while not exhaustive, highlight additional factors that have shaped states’ financial circumstances under SCHIP.

Inaccuracies in the CPS-based estimates on which states’ allotments were based. North Carolina, a shortfall state, offers a case in point. In 2004, the state had more low-income children enrolled in the program than CPS estimates indicated were eligible. To curb spending, North Carolina shifted children through age 5 from the state’s separate child health program to a Medicaid expansion, reduced provider payments, and limited enrollment growth.

Annual funding levels that did not reflect enrollment growth. Iowa, another shortfall state, noted that annual allocations provided too many funds in the early years of the program and too few in the later years. Iowa did not use all its allocations in the first 4 years and thus the state’s funds were redistributed to other states. Subsequently, however, the state has faced shortfalls as its program matured.

Impact of policies designed to curb or expand program growth.

Some states have attempted to manage program growth through ongoing adjustments to program parameters and outreach efforts. For example, when Florida’s enrollment exceeded a predetermined target in 2003, the state implemented a waiting list and eliminated outreach funding. When enrollment began to decline, the state reinstituted open enrollment and outreach. Similarly, Texas⎯commensurate with its budget constraints and projected surpluses⎯has tightened and loosened eligibility requirements and limited and expanded benefits over time in order to manage enrollment and spending.

Considerations for SCHIP Reauthorization

Children without health insurance are at increased risk of foregoing routine medical and dental care, immunizations, treatment for injuries, and treatment for chronic illnesses. Yet, the states and the federal government face challenges in their efforts to continue to finance health care coverage for children. As health care consumes a growing share of state general fund or operating budgets, slowdowns in economic growth can affect states’ abilities—and efforts—to address the demand for public financing of health services. Moreover, without substantive programmatic or revenue changes, the federal government faces near- and long-term fiscal challenges as the U.S. population ages because spending for retirement and health care programs will grow dramatically. Given these circumstances, we would like to suggest several issues for consideration as Congress addresses the reauthorization of SCHIP. These include the following: Maintaining flexibility without compromising the goals of SCHIP.

The federal-state SCHIP partnership has provided an important opportunity for innovation on the part of states for the overall benefit of children’s health. Providing three design choices for states—Medicaid expansions, separate child health programs, or a combination of both approaches—affords them the opportunity to focus on their own unique and specific priorities. For example, expansions of Medicaid offer Medicaid’s comprehensive benefits and administrative structures and ensure children’s coverage if states exhaust their SCHIP allotments. However, this entitlement status also increases financial risk to states. In contrast, SCHIP separate child health programs offer a “block grant” approach to covering children. As long as the states meet statutory requirements, they have the flexibility to structure coverage on an employer-based health plan model and can better control program spending than they can with a Medicaid expansion.

However, flexibility within the SCHIP program, such as that available through section 1115 waivers, may also result in consequences that can run counter to SCHIP’s goal—covering children. For example, we identified 15 states that have authority to cover adults with their federal SCHIP funds, with several states covering more adults than children. States’ rationale is that covering low-income parents in public programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid increases the enrollment of eligible children as well, with the result that fewer children go uninsured. Federal SCHIP law provides that families may be covered only if such coverage is cost- effective; that is, covering families costs no more than covering the SCHIP- eligible children. We earlier reported that HHS had approved state proposals for section 1115 waivers to use SCHIP funds to cover parents of SCHIP- and Medicaid-eligible children without regard to cost- effectiveness. We also reported that HHS approved state proposals for section 1115 waivers to use SCHIP funds to cover childless adults, which in our view was inconsistent with federal SCHIP law and allowed SCHIP funds to be diverted from the needs of low-income children. We suggested that Congress consider amending the SCHIP statute to specify that SCHIP funds were not available to provide health insurance coverage for childless adults. Under the DRA, Congress prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from approving any new section 1115 waivers to cover nonpregnant childless adults after October 1, 2005, but allowed waivers approved prior to that date to continue.

It is important to consider the implications of states’ use of allowable flexibility for other aspects of their programs. For example, what assurances exist that SCHIP funds are being spent in the most cost- effective manner, as required under federal law? In view of current federal fiscal constraints, to what extent should SCHIP funds be available for adult coverage? How has states’ use of available flexibility to establish expanded financial eligibility categories and covered populations affected their ability to operate their SCHIP programs within the original allotments provided to them?

Considering the federal financing strategy, including the financial sustainability of public commitments. As SCHIP programs have matured, states’ spending experience can help inform future federal financing decisions. CRS testified in July 2006 that 40 states were now spending more annually than they received in their annual original SCHIP allotments. While many of them did not face shortfalls in 2006 because of available prior-year balances, redistributed funds, and the supplemental DRA appropriation, 14 states are currently projected to face shortfalls in 2007. With the pool of funds available for redistribution virtually exhausted, the continued potential for funding shortfalls for many states raises some fundamental questions about SCHIP financing. If SCHIP is indeed a capped grant program, to what extent does the federal government have a responsibility to address shortfalls in individual states, especially those that have chosen to expand their programs beyond certain parameters? In contrast, if the policy goal is to ensure that states do not exhaust their federal SCHIP allotments, by providing for the continuing redistribution of funds or additional federal appropriations, does the program begin to take on the characteristics of an entitlement similar to Medicaid? What overall implications does this have for the federal budget?

Assessing issues associated with equity. The 10 years of SCHIP experience that states now have could help inform any policy decisions with respect to equity as part of the SCHIP reauthorization process. Although SCHIP generally targets children in families with incomes at or below 200 percent of FPL, 9 states are relatively more restrictive with their eligibility levels, while 14 states are more expansive, ranging as high as 350 percent of FPL. Given the policy goal of reducing the rate of uninsured among the nation’s children, to what extent should SCHIP funds be targeted to those states that have not yet achieved certain minimum coverage levels? Given current and future federal fiscal constraints, to what extent should the federal government provide federal financial participation above certain thresholds? What broader implications might this have for flexibility, choice, and equity across state programs?

Another consideration is whether the formulas used in SCHIP—both the formula to determine the federal matching rate and the formula to allocate funds to states—could be refined to better target funding to certain states for the benefit of covering uninsured children. Because the SCHIP formula is based on the Medicaid formula for federal matching funds, it has some inherent shortcomings that are likely beyond the scope of consideration for SCHIP reauthorization.

For the allocation formula that determines the amount of funds a state will receive each year, several analysts, including CRS, have noted alternatives that could be considered. These include altering the methods for estimating the number of children at the state level, adjusting the extent to which the SCHIP formula for allocating funds to states includes the number of uninsured versus low-income children, and incorporating states’ actual spending experiences to date into the formula. Considering the effects of any one or combination of these—or other—policy options would likely entail iterative analysis and thoughtful consideration of relevant trade-offs.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Kathryn G. Allen at (202) 512-7118 or at allenk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. Carolyn L. Yocom, Assistant Director; Nancy Fasciano; Kaycee M. Glavich; Paul B. Gold; JoAnn Martinez-Shriver; and Elizabeth T. Morrison made key contributions to this statement.

Appendix I: SCHIP Upper Income Eligibility by State, Fiscal Year 2005

Appendix I: SCHIP Upper Income Eligibility by State, Fiscal Year 2005 expressed as a percentage of FPL 200 expressed as a percentage of FPL While Tennessee has not had a SCHIP program since October 2002, in January 2007, CMS approved Tennessee’s SCHIP plan, which covers pregnant women and children in families with incomes up to 250 percent of FPL. According to state information, the program will be implemented in early 2007.

Related GAO Products

Children’s Health Insurance: State Experiences in Implementing SCHIP and Considerations for Reauthorization. GAO-07-447T. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2007.

Children’s Health Insurance: Recent HHS-OIG Reviews Inform the Congress on Improper Enrollment and Reductions in Low-Income, Uninsured Children. GAO-06-457R. Washington, D.C.: March 9, 2006. 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government. GAO-05-325SP. Washington, D.C.: February 2005.

Medicaid and SCHIP: States’ Premium and Cost Sharing Requirements for Beneficiaries. GAO-04-491. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004.

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

Medicaid Formula: Differences in Funding Ability among States Often Are Widened. GAO-03-620. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2003.

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

Health Insurance: States’ Protections and Programs Benefit Some Unemployed Individuals. GAO-03-191. Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2002.

Medicaid and SCHIP: Recent HHS Approvals of Demonstration Waiver Projects Raise Concerns. GAO-02-817. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2002.

Children’s Health Insurance: Inspector General Reviews Should Be Expanded to Further Inform the Congress. GAO-02-512. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002.

Long-Term Care: Aging Baby Boom Generation Will Increase Demand and Burden on Federal and State Budgets. GAO-02-544T. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 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.

Children’s Health Insurance: SCHIP Enrollment and Expenditure Information. GAO-01-993R. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2001.

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

Medicaid and SCHIP: Comparisons of Outreach, Enrollment Practices, and Benefits. GAO/HEHS-00-86. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2000.

Children’s Health Insurance Program: State Implementation Approaches Are Evolving. GAO/HEHS-99-65. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1999.

Medicaid: Demographics of Nonenrolled Children Suggest State Outreach Strategies. GAO/HEHS-98-93. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 1998.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.