Medicare covers about 40 million elderly (over 65 years old) and disabled beneficiaries. Individuals who are eligible for Medicare automatically receive Hospital Insurance, known as part A, which helps pay for inpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, hospice, and certain home health services. A beneficiary generally pays no premium for this coverage unless the beneficiary or spouse has worked fewer than 40 quarters in his or her lifetime, but the beneficiary is liable for required deductibles, coinsurance, and copayment amounts. Medicare-eligible beneficiaries may elect to purchase Supplementary Medical Insurance, known as part B, which helps pay for certain physician, outpatient hospital, laboratory, and other services. Beneficiaries must pay a premium for part B coverage, which was $58.70 per month in 2003. Beneficiaries are also responsible for part B deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. Table 1 summarizes the benefits covered and cost-sharing requirements for Medicare part A and part B. Many low-income Medicare beneficiaries who cannot afford to pay Medicare’s cost-sharing requirements receive assistance from Medicaid. For Medicare beneficiaries qualifying for full Medicaid benefits, state Medicaid programs pay for Medicare’s part A (if applicable) and part B cost-sharing requirements up to the Medicaid payment rate as well as for services that are not generally covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs. To qualify for full Medicaid benefits, beneficiaries must meet their state’s eligibility criteria, which include income and asset requirements that vary by state. In most states, beneficiaries that qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) automatically qualify for full Medicaid benefits. Other beneficiaries may qualify through one of several optional eligibility categories targeted to low-income beneficiaries, individuals with high medical costs, or those receiving care at home or in the community who otherwise would have been institutionalized. To assist low-income Medicare beneficiaries with their premium and cost- sharing obligations, Congress established several Medicare savings programs—the QMB, SLMB, QI, and QDWI programs. Under these programs, state Medicaid programs pay enrolled beneficiaries’ Medicare premiums. As a result, for QMB, SLMB and QI beneficiaries, Medicare part B premiums would not be deducted from their monthly SSA checks. The QMB program also pays Medicare deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements, thereby saving beneficiaries from having to make such payments. Beneficiaries eligible for Medicare savings programs can apply for and be determined to be eligible through their state Medicaid programs. Thirty-three states have agreements with SSA whereby SSA makes eligibility determinations for a state if beneficiaries are deemed eligible by SSA to receive SSI benefits. In the other 18 states, even if an individual is eligible to receive SSI benefits, an individual must file an application with the state or local Medicaid agency to be eligible. Beneficiaries qualifying for Medicare savings programs receive different levels of assistance depending on their income. See table 2 for eligibility criteria and benefits for each program. In 1998, Congress passed legislation specifically providing funding for SSA to evaluate ways to promote Medicare savings programs. In response, SSA conducted demonstration projects to explore the effects of using various approaches to increase participation in Medicare savings programs. In one of these demonstrations conducted in 1999 and 2000, SSA tested six models designed to increase awareness and reduce barriers to enrollment. The models were implemented at 20 sites in 10 states, as well as the entire state of Massachusetts. The models differed in the extent to which SSA was involved in outreach efforts beyond mailing the letters. For example, in the “application model,” SSA staff screened beneficiaries if they appeared to be eligible, completed applications, collected supporting documents, and forwarded the completed application form and supporting evidence to the state Medicaid agency for an eligibility determination. In the “peer assistance model,” Medicare beneficiaries contacted an AARP toll-free number and were screened for program eligibility by an AARP volunteer. Across all six models, SSA sent more than 700,000 letters informing low-income Medicare beneficiaries that they may be eligible for benefits under the Medicare savings programs. The enrollment rate for each model varied—ranging from an additional 7 enrollees per 1,000 letters to 26 enrollees per 1,000 letters—with the application model recording the highest enrollment rate and peer assistance recording the lowest. In 2000, Congress amended the Social Security Act, through BIPA, requiring the Commissioner of Social Security to notify eligible Medicare beneficiaries about assistance available from state Medicaid programs to help pay Medicare premiums and cost sharing. BIPA also required SSA to furnish each state Medicaid program with the names and addresses of individuals residing in the state that SSA determines may be eligible for the Medicare savings programs. SSA is required to update such information at least annually. In addition to SSA’s outreach efforts, CMS and individual states have engaged in efforts to increase enrollment in Medicare savings programs. Since fiscal year 2002, CMS has included increasing awareness of the Medicare savings programs as one of its Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals. Specifically, CMS’s goal in fiscal year 2002 was to develop a baseline to measure awareness of Medicare savings programs and to set future targets for increasing awareness. CMS estimated that 11 percent of beneficiaries were aware of Medicare savings programs in 2002 and the goal was to increase this to 13 percent for fiscal year 2003. As part of its efforts to increase awareness, CMS has coordinated with states, SSA, and other organizations regarding various outreach efforts; provided information about Medicare savings programs in various CMS publications; and developed a variety of educational materials for targeted populations, including minorities. CMS efforts in increasing enrollment in earlier years included setting state-specific enrollment targets and measuring progress toward these enrollment targets; developing and disseminating training and outreach materials to the states, and sponsoring national and regional training workshops for a variety of stakeholders, including other federal and state agencies, health care providers, and community organizations; designing a model application for Medicare savings programs that states can consider adopting; and providing grant funding to state Medicaid agencies, state health insurance assistance programs, and national advocacy groups to test and promote innovative approaches to outreach. In 2001, CMS also contracted for a survey of states to identify activities undertaken to increase program enrollment and streamline administration of these programs. Some of the most common state efforts included allowing application by mail (49 states), eliminating in-person interviews (46 states), developing a shorter application form (43 states), and conducting outreach presentations at health fairs (34 states). Other state efforts identified by the survey included increasing awareness of the programs through outreach efforts such as direct mailings and other printed material, and public service announcements on radio, television, and in newspapers; providing training for employees and education for beneficiaries; developing partnerships with other entities, such as State Health Insurance Assistance programs and local agencies on aging, to enhance outreach efforts and promote issues and solutions involving the Medicare savings programs; eliminating potential barriers to enrollment such as streamlining the enrollment and renewal process and easing financial eligibility rules; supplementing program benefits with other benefits, such as prescription drug discount programs; and providing information targeting underserved populations, including minorities. In response to BIPA, SSA is conducting an annual outreach effort to help increase enrollment in Medicare savings programs. This outreach consists of a nationwide mailing campaign and data sharing with the states. SSA selected low-income Medicare beneficiaries to be sent an outreach letter if their incomes were below the income eligibility ceilings for the Medicare savings programs. From May through November 2002, SSA sent a total of 16.4 million outreach letters to persons potentially eligible for QMB, SLMB, and QI. Additionally, in late 2002, SSA sent about 53,000 letters to those potentially eligible for benefits under the QDWI program. Starting in 2003, SSA has targeted annual outreach letters to individuals newly eligible for Medicare as well as a subset of those who were sent outreach letters in 2002 but are still not enrolled. From June through October 2003, SSA sent outreach letters to 4.3 million of these beneficiaries. SSA intends to continue its outreach mailing annually to potentially eligible beneficiaries, including recipients who did not enroll after receiving earlier letters, as well as those whose income has declined, making them eligible for the program. In addition to sending outreach letters, in 2002 and 2003 SSA provided states with a data file that listed residents who were potentially eligible for benefits under the Medicare savings programs. SSA plans to continue sharing these data once a year with states. The data provided by SSA could be used by the states to coordinate their outreach with SSA’s or supplement SSA’s outreach efforts. For the 2002 mailing, SSA sent letters three times each week from May through November. Each time letters were mailed, SSA sent them to approximately 207,000 Medicare beneficiaries randomly selected from the 16.4 million beneficiaries who were identified as potentially eligible for QMB, SLMB, and QI. Letters were targeted to beneficiaries whose incomes from Social Security and certain other federal sources were less than 135 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Specifically, those selected to be sent the outreach letters were intended to meet the following three criteria: individuals and couples entitled to Medicare, or within 2 months of Medicare entitlement eligibility; individuals who were not currently receiving Medicare savings program benefits under a state Medicaid program or not already entitled to full Medicaid based on SSI participation; and individuals and couples whose combined Social Security income and Department of Veterans Affairs and federal civil service pensions fell below the program’s income eligibility ceiling. The letters provided information in English or Spanish about the Medicare savings programs, including state-specific asset guidelines and a state contact number. (See app. II for a sample 2002 outreach letter.) At the end of November 2002, SSA sent a separate mailing to about 53,000 disabled working adults who were potentially eligible for benefits under the QDWI program. Medicare beneficiaries who had sources of income other than Social Security—such as income from employment and public and private pensions—and whose incomes were above the programs’ eligibility thresholds were selected nonetheless to be sent the SSA outreach letter because SSA’s data systems do not collect information on these income sources. In addition, SSA’s records do not contain information about beneficiaries’ private assets, making it impossible for SSA to identify whether letter recipients had assets within their states’ Medicare savings programs’ eligibility limits—typically $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for couples. In 2002, the Medicare Rights Center, a national health advocacy group for older adults and people with disabilities, sought a federal court order requiring SSA to resend 1.4 million letters to potentially eligible beneficiaries in Connecticut and New York to correct erroneous information on the asset limit for the QI program. The New York and Connecticut letters had incorrectly informed potential beneficiaries that only individuals with assets of less than $4,000 were eligible for the QI program, even though Connecticut and New York abolished the asset requirement for QI eligibility in 2001 and 2002, respectively. SSA agreed to resend the letters and the parties settled the case before trial. In addition to sending letters to potentially eligible low-income Medicare beneficiaries, in 2002 SSA provided all but six states with an electronic data file containing the names of all beneficiaries to whom it had sent letters in that state. The data file contained information that could assist states with outreach efforts, such as the name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, spouse’s name, and the basis for Medicare entitlement of each letter recipient. SSA is required to provide updated data to the states each year. For the June through October 2003 mailing, SSA sent a second round of letters to about 4.3 million potentially eligible low-income Medicare beneficiaries nationwide whom its records indicated might have met the QMB, SLMB, and QI income eligibility criteria and were not currently enrolled in Medicare savings programs. This mailing included beneficiaries who were newly eligible since the 2002 mailing, current Medicare beneficiaries who newly met the income criteria, and about one-fifth of the beneficiaries notified in 2002 who still met the mailing criteria but were not enrolled in a Medicare savings program. At the time we conducted our work, enrollment data for beneficiaries who were sent the letter in 2003 were not available. In contrast to the 2002 letter that provided state-specific eligibility criteria and a state-specific telephone number, the 2003 letter did not contain customized state information, but provided more general national information. The letter suggested that beneficiaries who may be eligible check the government list in their local telephone books for their local Medicaid contact or call the general 1-800-Medicare number that refers callers to state help lines, such as state or local medical assistance offices, social services, or welfare offices. SSA gave several reasons for not including state-specific information in the 2003 letter. One official indicated that there was additional cost to SSA to develop state-specific letters and therefore the agency did not tailor the letters for each state. CMS officials reported that a few states did not want to provide state-level contact numbers because eligibility and other Medicare savings program administrative matters were actually conducted at the county levels. Furthermore, in some cases, the telephone numbers states initially provided were changed shortly before the 2002 mailings were begun, creating additional need for SSA to coordinate with states in finalizing the letters. However, some state officials we interviewed expressed concern about the lack of state-specific information for the 2003 mailing. Their concern was that, given that most states had established mechanisms for responding to these inquiries for the larger 2002 mailing, not including state-specific criteria or contact information on the letter could make the letter less effective since it could be more difficult for beneficiaries to obtain direct assistance or applications for eligibility determinations. We estimate that SSA’s mailing from May through November 2002 to 16.4 million potentially eligible beneficiaries contributed to more than 74,000 additional beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare savings programs. Further, in the year following SSA’s mailing, nationwide enrollment in Medicare savings programs increased 2.4 to 2.9 percentage points over that in the 3 previous years. Certain demographic groups also had larger additional increases in enrollment following the 2002 SSA mailing. For example, beneficiaries less than 65 years old, persons with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, and residents in southern states experienced larger additional increases in enrollment. On the basis of our analysis of SSA’s Master Beneficiary Record (MBR), we estimate that, of the 16.4 million SSA letter recipients in 2002, an additional 74,000 beneficiaries (0.5 percent of letter recipients) enrolled in Medicare savings programs than would have likely enrolled without the mailing. To estimate this increased enrollment, we examined two cohorts of letter recipients—a cohort of 1.3 million beneficiaries who were sent the letters during the first six mailings in May 2002 and a baseline cohort of 1.3 million beneficiaries who were sent the letters during the last six mailings through November 2002. Because SSA sent the mailing to beneficiaries in a random order nationwide from May through November 2002, the only difference between the cohorts is the time at which the letters were sent to them. As a result, other factors that could influence enrollment patterns, such as demographic differences or other outreach efforts by CMS and the states, should affect the May and November cohorts similarly. We used the November 2002 cohort as a baseline to examine how the May 2002 cohort’s enrollment in Medicare savings programs was affected following SSA’s mailing. As shown in figure 1, by August 2002—3 months after the initial letters were sent in May 2002—the Medicare savings program enrollment for the May cohort began to increase faster than that of the November cohort, which was yet to have the SSA letter sent to them. While the cohorts were sent the SSA letters in May or November 2002, SSA officials reported that it typically takes about 3 months before enrollment is reported in the MBR. As of December 2002, more than 5,800 additional beneficiaries in the cohort of 1.3 million beneficiaries who were sent the letter in May had enrolled in Medicare savings programs compared with the November cohort, whose enrollment was not yet affected by the mailing. (See table 3.) This additional enrollment in the May cohort represents 0.5 percent of the letter recipients. Projecting the experience of the May cohort to the universe of the 16.4 million letter recipients results in an estimate of over 74,000 additional beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare savings programs as a result of the 2002 SSA mailing. Nationwide, CMS data showed that Medicare savings programs experienced an overall net increase in enrollment of 5.9 percent (341,069 individuals) from May 2002—the start of SSA’s mailing—to May 2003. This 5.9 percent increase was nearly double the 3.0 to 3.5 percent increases in the 3 previous years before SSA’s nationwide mailings. (See table 4.) These data suggest that SSA’s mailing helped to increase enrollment at a greater annual rate than in earlier years. Across the United States, letter recipients residing in the southern states had a 0.6 percent additional increase in enrollment following SSA’s mailing. This was more than residents in the Northeast, Midwest, and West, where the additional increase in enrollment was 0.4 percent. Thirty- five states had an additional increase in enrollment following the SSA mailing compared to the increase that would likely have occurred without the letter. Of the thirty-five states, the largest additional increase in enrollment following the SSA mailing occurred in Alabama, (2.9 percent), followed by Delaware (2.0 percent), and Mississippi (1.3 percent). While data from 13 other states showed an increase in enrollment following the SSA mailing, these increases were not statistically significant. Another three states showed a decrease in enrollment following the SSA mailing, but these changes also were not statistically significant. Appendix III provides the additional percentage change in enrollment following the 2002 SSA mailing for each state. Certain demographic groups also had higher additional increases in enrollment rates than the additional increase among all letter recipients. In comparison to the 0.5 percent additional increase in enrollment among all letter recipients, beneficiaries less than 65 years old and beneficiaries of any age who qualified for Medicare as a result of a disability each had a 0.8 percent additional increase in enrollment following SSA’s outreach. Also, minority beneficiaries, which based on SSA’s data categories include blacks or individuals of African origin, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and North American Indians or Eskimos, had a 0.7 percent additional increase in enrollment. Appendix IV provides data for all demographic groups that we examined. The percentage of additional letter recipients newly enrolling in Medicare savings programs following SSA’s mailings varied significantly among the six states we reviewed. Among these six states, enrollment increases ranged from 0.3 to 2.9 percent. Further, several states we reviewed reported that calls to their telephone hot lines and applications mailed or received increased sharply during the period of the SSA outreach. In addition, some states supplemented SSA efforts with outreach efforts of their own, while other states were aware of or assisted outreach efforts by private or community groups. Among the states we reviewed, SSA’s outreach had varying effects on the percentage of letter recipients enrolling. Alabama, with 2.9 percent additional letter recipients enrolled compared to the percentage that likely would have enrolled without the SSA letter, had the largest additional increase in enrollment following the SSA mailing. This contrasts with the national average of 0.5 percent. For the states we reviewed, SSA’s outreach had the least impact on Medicare savings program enrollment in California, Washington, and New York with a 0.3 percent increase in additional enrollment. (See table 5.) The varying effects on enrollment by state can be attributed to several factors, including, the share of eligible beneficiaries already enrolled in Medicare savings programs prior to the outreach, a state’s ability to handle increased phone calls and applications, and a state’s income and asset limits. For example, a smaller share of low-income elderly beneficiaries in Alabama was enrolled in QMB as of the year prior to the SSA mailing than the national average. Specifically, the number of QMB enrollees in Alabama in 2001 was about half the number of Alabama seniors reported by the Census Bureau to have incomes below the limit for the QMB program. In contrast, about three-quarters of the seniors nationwide who reported income below the QMB limit were enrolled. As a result, a larger number of letter recipients in Alabama may have been able to meet the QMB and other Medicare savings program eligibility criteria whereas other states may have already enrolled a larger share of these beneficiaries. Further, each of the states we reviewed established or used an existing state-specific telephone number that was listed in the SSA letter to receive calls. After the SSA mailing started, however, California’s phone number was discontinued and calls were redirected to CMS’s nationwide 1-800- Medicare number. California’s lower enrollment could also result from its eligibility requirements for SSI. For example, in a prior demonstration, SSA’s mailing in 1999 and 2000 resulted in lower enrollment in California than in other demonstration sites, in part because the state offered a generous state supplement to SSI. Therefore, there were potentially not as many people eligible for the Medicare savings programs. In addition, other state differences, such as different state asset eligibility requirements and application requirements as well as state efforts to support the SSA outreach, may have contributed to different effects among states. States we reviewed often reported that calls to their hot lines and applications for Medicare savings programs increased significantly during the period of the 2002 SSA mailing. Four states provided data on the monthly trends in the number of calls either related to Medicare and Medicaid in general or the Medicare savings program specifically that showed increases concurrent with the 2002 SSA mailing. Three states were also able to provide data on changes in the number of applications sent to interested beneficiaries or received from beneficiaries. (See table 6.) While officials in several states indicated that not all of the increases noted could be attributed directly to the SSA mailing, the data provided by the states suggest that beneficiaries’ interest in Medicare savings programs increased during the mailing period. For example, Alabama experienced a 19 percent increase in monthly calls to its state hot line related to any Medicare and Medicaid issue after the SSA mailings began; this was followed by a 25 percent decrease after the mailings ended. Alabama also experienced a 158 percent surge in applications received per month during the SSA mailing and then a decrease of 57 percent afterwards. State officials reported that Washington tracked calls and applications specific to the SSA mailing, and these data showed 85 percent decreases in both monthly call volume and applications mailed out to beneficiaries after the mailings ended; Washington also reported a 72 percent monthly decrease in applications received after the 2002 mailings ended. Concurrent with SSA’s mailing, each of the states we reviewed reported that the state or other stakeholders conducted additional outreach. For example, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and the Pennsylvania Health Law Project, a coalition advocating for low-income individuals and the disabled, each received 3-year grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 2002 to conduct outreach to low-income Medicare beneficiaries in these states. A state official also reported that in 2002 the New York Department of Health developed and distributed 100,000 copies of a brochure called “How To Protect Your Health and Money,” which included information about the Medicare savings programs, and conducted a “Senior Day” at 16 sites in New York City and several other districts as well as presentations at local fairs. Other states reported coordinating with community or state organizations as well as private health plans participating in Medicare, such as health maintenance organizations participating in the Medicare + Choice program. Some private health plans conducted outreach to increase Medicare savings program enrollment since CMS pays these plans a higher rate for these enrollees. Several state officials also said that their states work with other groups, such as the local departments of aging or senior services and local businesses and community organizations, to assist with outreach efforts to potentially eligible beneficiaries. None of the states we reviewed reported having assessed the effectiveness of their outreach efforts. Of the six states we reviewed, only Louisiana and Pennsylvania officials reported that they used the data file listing names and addresses of potentially eligible beneficiaries provided by SSA in 2002 to assist with state outreach or enrollment efforts. For example, after receiving the SSA data file, seven parishes in Louisiana used it to obtain a list of potentially eligible beneficiaries and sent an application with a letter and return envelope to these beneficiaries. In 2003, about 20,450 applications were mailed to potential beneficiaries. Pennsylvania officials used the file to cross-check against the state’s own data system to assess the number of applications authorized, rejected, or denied as a result of the SSA mailing. We provided a draft of this report to SSA, CMS, and state Medicaid agencies in Alabama, California, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. In written comments, SSA generally concurred with our findings and provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. SSA also noted that improvements in state enrollment processes could further increase enrollment. SSA’s comments are reprinted in appendix V. In a written response, CMS stated it did not have any specific comments on the report. However, CMS provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. While we did not examine the effects of SSA’s 2003 mailing, Louisiana Medicaid officials indicated that, in comparison to the 2002 SSA mailing, there was little increase in call volume following SSA’s 2003 mailing, and that they believe that this was because a state-specific telephone number was not included in the 2003 outreach letter. New York Medicaid officials stated that they found an increase in Medicare savings program enrollment of over 6 percent from December 2002 to December 2003. However, in addition to being a different timeframe from what we examined, we do not believe that all of this increase can be attributed to the SSA mailing. Based on our analysis of SSA’s MBR data, we report a 0.3 percent increase in enrollment in New York specifically attributable to the 2002 SSA outreach mailing. We found the net increase in enrollment from May 2002 to May 2003 (following SSA’s 2002 mailing) to be 5.9 percent nationwide, similar to the net increase in enrollment that New York reported from December 2002 to December 2003. Louisiana and Pennsylvania Medicaid officials also provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. Alabama, California, and Washington Medicaid officials reviewed the draft and stated that the report accurately reflected information relevant to their respective states. We are sending copies of this report to the Commissioner of SSA, the Administrator of CMS, and other interested parties. We will also provide copies to others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please call me at (202) 512-7118 or John Dicken at (202) 512-7043 if you have any additional questions. N. Rotimi Adebonojo and Rashmi Agarwal were major contributors to this report. To determine what outreach the Social Security Administration (SSA) conducted in response to the statutory requirement, we obtained and reviewed copies of SSA documents, including sample 2002 and 2003 outreach letters and data on the number of letters sent to eligible Medicare beneficiaries in each state, as well as reports prepared by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) related to the Medicare savings program. In addition, we interviewed officials from the SSA and CMS. To determine how enrollment changed following SSA’s outreach, we analyzed records from SSA’s Master Beneficiary Record (MBR)—a database that contains the administrative records of Social Security beneficiaries, including payments for Medicare premiums—and CMS’s national enrollment data for the Medicare savings programs. The MBR data contain demographic information as well as information on the monthly deductions made from beneficiaries’ Social Security checks to cover Medicare part B premiums. We obtained MBR data on beneficiaries who were sent the outreach letters in the first six mailings in May and the last six mailings through November 2002, representing 2.6 million of the 16.4 million Social Security beneficiaries who were sent letters from SSA. To determine which letter recipients enrolled in the Medicare savings programs following SSA’s 2002 mailing, we identified letter recipients who met the following criteria: those whose date of eligibility for Medicare savings programs began January 2002 or afterwards; those for whom a third-party payer, specifically a state, made payments on their behalf to cover Medicare part B premiums; and those who no longer had the premium deduction made from their Social Security checks to cover Medicare part B premiums at any point from June 2002 through December 2002. In order to estimate the impact of the SSA outreach mailing on additional enrollment in Medicare savings programs, we analyzed monthly enrollment from June 2002 to December 2002 for two cohorts of letter recipients to identify letter recipients who enrolled in Medicare savings programs following the initiation of the SSA mailing in May 2002. Because the mailings were sent to beneficiaries in a random order, the only notable difference between the recipients in the two cohorts would be the timing of when the SSA letters were sent to them. SSA officials noted that it typically takes about 3 months until enrollment is reported on the MBR. Therefore, since the mailings began in May 2002, the first effects of the mailing would not have been apparent until after June 2002. We analyzed the MBR data provided by SSA to determine specifically what month and year a letter recipient enrolled in Medicare savings programs. Using the enrollment by the November cohort as a baseline because these individuals met the same selection criteria as those in the May cohort, we estimated the net effect of the SSA mailing by comparing the difference in cumulative monthly enrollment between the May and November cohorts in December 2002—this difference represented the additional enrollment we attributed to the SSA mailing. We made the comparison in December 2002 because after this date the enrollment of the baseline group began increasing at a rate faster than the May cohort, indicating that this was the point when the largest cumulative difference in enrollment between the two cohorts occurred before the effects of the mailing started becoming evident for the November cohort. Using the same methodology, we calculated the effect of the SSA outreach letter for certain demographic groups and for beneficiaries in each state. We also obtained and analyzed data contained in CMS’s third party master file for the period May 1999 to May 2003 that tracks national Medicare savings programs enrollment. Using these data, we examined how national Medicare savings enrollment trends compared before and after the 2002 SSA mailing. To determine how additional enrollment in the programs changed in selected states following SSA’s outreach and what outreach efforts these states undertook, we interviewed Medicaid officials in six states— Alabama, California, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. We selected these states based on several factors, including states with different levels of change in overall Medicare savings programs enrollment from 2002 to 2003, geographic diversity, relatively large populations of Medicare savings programs enrollees, and availability of data on program enrollment. We also reviewed CMS’s third party master file to identify how many beneficiaries in each state were enrolled in Medicare savings programs, and analyzed records from SSA’s MBR to estimate the additional enrollment in each state following the SSA mailing. In addition, we obtained information from each state to the extent available on its involvement with the SSA mailing, the state’s specific eligibility criteria for its Medicare savings program, outreach efforts conducted by the state to low-income Medicare beneficiaries, and state data on call and application volume before, during, and after the SSA outreach. We obtained information from SSA and CMS on their data reliability checks and any known limitations on the data they provided us. SSA and CMS perform quality controls, such as data system edits, on the MBR and the third party beneficiary master file, respectively. We concluded that their data were sufficiently reliable for our analysis. A few MBR variables have certain limitations. For example, some Medicare beneficiaries receive their Social Security payments electronically, and therefore may not keep the record of their mailing address current. For our analysis we only used the beneficiary’s state of residence, which is less likely to change as SSA reported that, even if a beneficiary’s address changes, the beneficiary often stays within the same state of residence. Finally, since it is optional for beneficiaries to identify their race, a number of Social Security recipients do not. However, sufficient numbers of individuals reported their race to to allow us to analyze these data and also report missing or unknown values. SSA mailed 16.4 million letters in 2002 to potentially eligible Medicare beneficiaries notifying them about state Medicare savings programs. These letters were customized to include state-specific information, including a state contact number. These letters were sent in English or Spanish, depending on the beneficiary’s preference. Figure 2 provides a sample of the outreach letter sent to a beneficiary in Texas between May and November 2002. Figure 3 shows enrollment by state of the estimated 74,000 additional beneficiaries who enrolled in Medicare savings programs following the 2002 SSA mailing. Because these estimates are based on two cohorts of about 1.3 million beneficiaries each that represent a sample of the entire population of 16.4 million beneficiaries, we calculated 95 percent confidence intervals to reflect the potential for statistical error in projecting these estimates from the sample cohorts to the entire population. The small sample size in states with smaller populations results in larger confidence intervals for the estimates for these states. The highest additional increase in enrollment was in Alabama, in which an estimated 2.9 percent (with a 95 percent confidence interval of 2.6 percent to 3.3 percent) of beneficiaries who were sent the SSA letter enrolled than if the mailing had not occurred. In three states (Montana, Utah, and Vermont) our analysis showed no additional or slightly negative enrollment following the SSA mailing, and because the confidence intervals for these and 13 other states overlap the numeric value zero, the data do not show a statistically significant change in additional enrollment in the Medicare savings programs following the 2002 SSA mailing for these states. The other 35 states showed a statistically significant increase in additional enrollment in the Medicare savings programs following the 2002 SSA mailing. On the basis of our analysis of SSA’s MBR, we estimate that enrollment in Medicare savings programs was about 74,000 higher for Medicare beneficiaries following the 2002 SSA mailing than it would have been without the mailing. This represents about 0.5 percent of the 16.4 million letters sent nationwide. However, this additional enrollment following the SSA mailing varied among demographic groups. Figure 4 shows the additional enrollment in Medicare savings programs following the 2002 SSA mailing by geographic region and demographic groups, including racial categories, sex, disability status, and age categories. Because these estimates are based on two cohorts of about 1.3 million beneficiaries each that represent a sample of the entire population of 16.4 million beneficiaries, we calculated 95 percent confidence intervals to reflect the potential for statistical error in projecting these estimates from the sample cohorts to the entire population. Additional enrollment following the 2002 SSA mailing was statistically significantly higher among beneficiaries in southern states compared to other geographic regions, minorities compared to white beneficiaries, beneficiaries with disabilities compared to beneficiaries without disabilities, and beneficiaries who were younger than 65 years compared to those who were 65 years or older. Medicare and Medicaid: Implementing State Demonstrations for Dual Eligibles Has Proven Challenging. GAO/HEHS-00-94. Washington, D.C.: August 18, 2000. Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries: Further Outreach and Administrative Simplification Could Increase Enrollment. GAO/HEHS- 99-61. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 1999. Medicare and Medicaid: Meeting Needs of Dual Eligibles Raises Difficult Cost and Care Issues. GAO/T-HEHS-97-119. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1997. Medicare and Medicaid: Many Eligible People Not Enrolled in Qualified Medicare Beneficiary Program. GAO/HEHS-94-52. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 1994.

Summary: To assist low-income beneficiaries with their share of premiums and other out-of-pocket costs associated with Medicare, Congress has created four Medicare savings programs. Historic low enrollment in these programs has been attributed to several factors, including lack of awareness about the programs, and cumbersome eligibility determination and enrollment processes through state Medicaid programs. Concerned about this low enrollment, Congress passed legislation as part of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) requiring the Social Security Administration (SSA) to notify low-income Medicare beneficiaries of their potential eligibility for Medicare savings programs. The statute also required GAO to study the impact of SSA's outreach effort. GAO examined what outreach SSA undertook to increase enrollment, how enrollment changed following SSA's 2002 outreach, and how enrollment changed in selected states following SSA's outreach and what additional outreach efforts these states undertook. GAO reviewed information obtained from SSA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), analyzed enrollment data provided by SSA and CMS, and interviewed officials in and obtained data from six selected states (Alabama, California, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington). In response to a statutory requirement, SSA is carrying out an annual outreach effort to help increase enrollment in Medicare savings programs. This outreach effort consists of mailing letters to potentially eligible lowincome beneficiaries nationwide as well as sharing data with states to assist with their supplemental outreach efforts. In 2002, SSA sent 16.4 million letters to low-income Medicare beneficiaries whose incomes from Social Security and certain other federal sources met the income eligibility criteria for Medicare savings programs. The 2002 letters provided eligibility criteria for programs in the beneficiary's home state and urged beneficiaries interested in enrolling to call a state telephone number provided. In addition to sending these letters, SSA provided states with a data file containing information on the beneficiaries to whom it sent letters. In 2003, SSA sent another 4.3 million letters to potentially eligible beneficiaries, and indicated that it intends to repeat the outreach mailing annually to newly eligible beneficiaries and a portion of prior letter recipients. Following SSA's outreach efforts in 2002, GAO estimated that more than 74,000 additional eligible beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare savings programs, 0.5 percent of all 2002 letter recipients, than would have likely enrolled without the letter. CMS enrollment data also showed that growth in Medicare savings programs enrollment for the year following SSA's mailing was nearly double that for each of the 3 prior years. Of the 74,000 additional enrollees, certain states and demographic groups had somewhat larger increases in enrollment than other groups. The highest additional enrollment increase was in Alabama, where 2.9 percent of letter recipients enrolled, followed by Delaware at 2.0 percent. Beneficiaries less than 65 years old, persons with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, and residents in southern states also had higher enrollment rates than other groups. The percentage of letter recipients newly enrolling in Medicare savings programs following SSA's 2002 mailing ranged from 0.3 to 2.9 percent among the six states GAO reviewed. The varying effects on enrollment by state could be attributable to several factors, including the share of eligible beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare savings programs prior to the outreach, each state's ability to handle increased call and application volume, and a state's income and asset limits. Four states GAO reviewed reported increases in the numbers of calls received or applications mailed or received following the SSA mailing and then decreases after the mailing period ended. Each of the states GAO reviewed reported that the state or other stakeholders conducted additional outreach during SSA's 2002 outreach. SSA generally agreed with GAO's findings. CMS stated that it did not have specific comments on the report.