Medicaid programs generally represent an open-ended entitlement under which the federal government is obligated to pay its share of expenditures for covered services provided to eligible individuals under each state’s federally approved Medicaid plan. Under federal Medicaid law, to qualify for Medicaid coverage, individuals generally must fall within certain eligibility categories—such as children, pregnant women, adults in families with dependent children, and those who are aged or disabled— and meet financial eligibility criteria. In addition, since 1986, federal law has required that, as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, individuals declare under penalty of perjury that they are citizens or nationals of the United States or in satisfactory immigration status. Eligibility is determined at the time of application, and for individuals enrolled in the program, at a regular basis referred to as redetermination. States differ in how they determine eligibility for Medicaid, and many took steps before 2006 to streamline their enrollment processes. While some states conduct all eligibility screening and determinations within the state’s Medicaid agency, other states contract with different state agencies, counties, or other local governmental entities to conduct or assist with eligibility determinations. In some cases, states also utilize community-based organizations to assist with outreach and education in their Medicaid programs. Over the past decade, states have also made efforts to simplify the application process to make Medicaid programs more accessible to eligible families. As part of these efforts, many states implemented mail-in applications and ended requirements for face-to-face interviews. States also began coordinating Medicaid eligibility determinations with other public programs, such as school lunch programs and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Enacted in February 2006, the DRA includes a number of new requirements for state Medicaid programs. Most relevant to this report, as of July 1, 2006, the DRA required states to document citizenship of applicants and beneficiaries as a condition of receiving federal matching funds for their Medicaid expenditures. Under this provision, Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries who are undergoing redeterminations of eligibility must provide “satisfactory documentary evidence” of citizenship. Documenting citizenship is a onetime event completed by individuals either at application or, for those already enrolled, at their first redetermination of eligibility. (Fig. 1 illustrates the sequence of key events regarding the requirement from enactment of the DRA through February 2007.) The DRA explicitly exempts certain individuals from having to document citizenship, specifically those entitled to or enrolled in Medicare, certain individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income, and any additional populations as designated by the Secretary of HHS. In December 2006, Congress expanded the list of populations that are exempt, adding individuals receiving Social Security disability insurance benefits and children in foster care or children who are receiving adoption or foster care assistance. In implementing the DRA provision, CMS first provided guidance to states in a June 2006 letter to state Medicaid directors and subsequently published an interim final rule on July 12, 2006, almost 2 weeks after the DRA provision went into effect. In the interim final rule, CMS expanded upon the list of acceptable documents identified in the DRA and published regulations that grouped the documents by level of reliability, creating a hierarchy in the list and restricting the use of less reliable documents. As required under the DRA, certain documents, such as U.S. passports, are considered sufficient evidence of citizenship. The DRA requires that if an individual does not have one of these primary documents, the individual must produce specific types of documentation establishing citizenship, such as a U.S. birth certificate, as well as documentation establishing personal identity. The regulations published by CMS similarly identify primary, or tier 1, documents to establish citizenship. Under the regulations, if individuals do not have primary evidence, they are expected to produce secondary, or tier 2, evidence of citizenship, such as a military record showing a U.S. place of birth, as well as evidence of identity, such as a state-issued driver’s license. If neither primary nor secondary evidence of citizenship is available, individuals may provide third tier evidence of citizenship to accompany evidence of identity. If primary evidence of citizenship is unavailable, secondary and third tier evidence do not exist or cannot be obtained in a reasonable time period, and the individual was born in the United States, then the individual may provide fourth tier evidence of citizenship, along with evidence of identity. (See table 1 and app. I.) In addition to prescribing a list of acceptable documents for verifying citizenship, the regulations issued by CMS specify, with one exception, that documents must be originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. The exception is that for a U.S. birth certificate, which is a tier 2 document, states may use a cross match with a state vital statistics agency to document a birth record. The regulations allow states to accept original documentation from individuals in person or through the mail. Under the regulations issued by CMS, states must provide applicants and Medicaid beneficiaries a “reasonable opportunity” to document their citizenship before denying or terminating Medicaid eligibility. States have flexibility in defining the length of the reasonable opportunity period. The regulations further explain that current Medicaid beneficiaries must remain eligible for benefits during this period but that states may terminate eligibility afterward if they determine that the beneficiary has not made a good faith effort to present documentation. In contrast, applicants are not eligible for Medicaid coverage until they submit the required documentation. The regulations also require states to assist individuals who are physically or mentally incapable of obtaining documentation and do not have a representative to assist them. However, the regulations do not specify criteria for determining who is capable or the level of assistance states should provide. CMS intends to monitor state implementation of the requirement, including the extent to which states use the most reliable evidence available to establish citizenship based on its hierarchy. States that do not comply with the regulations may face either denied or deferred payment of federal matching funds. In the interim final rule, CMS assessed potential administrative and fiscal effects of the requirement. For example, CMS estimated that individuals would need, on average, 10 minutes to acquire and provide the state with acceptable documentary evidence and that states would need 5 minutes per individual to verify citizenship and maintain current records. In addition, CMS determined that implementing the rule would have no consequential effect on costs for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Under the rule, states may seek federal Medicaid matching funds for administrative expenditures associated with implementing the requirement at a 50 percent federal matching rate. States reported that the requirement resulted in barriers to access, such as delayed or lost Medicaid coverage for some eligible individuals. Of the 44 states, 22 reported a decline in Medicaid enrollment due to the requirement. Most that reported a decline in enrollment attributed it to delays in or losses of coverage for individuals who appeared to be eligible citizens, and all states reporting a decline reported that children were affected by the requirement. States that reported a decline in enrollment varied in their views of the effects on access to Medicaid coverage after the first year of implementation. State enrollment policies and whether an individual is an applicant or a beneficiary at redetermination are two factors that may have influenced the effect of the requirement on individuals’ access. Half the states that reported implementing the requirement noted that the requirement resulted in declines in Medicaid enrollment. Of the 44 states, 22 states reported a decline in enrollment due to implementing the requirement, 12 reported no change in enrollment as a result of the requirement, and 10 reported that they did not know the effect of the requirement on enrollment (see fig. 1). Of the 22 states that reported a decline in enrollment due to the requirement, all responded that children were affected by the requirement, and 21 reported that adults were affected, with 2 specifying pregnant women. A few also responded that the aged and blind and disabled were also affected. Though states often cited a combination of reasons for the decline in Medicaid enrollment, when asked the primary reason, the majority of states (12 of 22) reported that enrollment declined because applicants who appeared to be eligible citizens experienced delays in receiving coverage. In addition, 5 of the 22 states identified the primary reason for the enrollment decline as current beneficiaries losing coverage, with 4 of the 5 states reporting that those individuals appeared eligible. Two states reported that declines were largely driven by denials in coverage for individuals who did not prove their citizenship. It was unclear from survey results, however, whether these individuals were determined ineligible because they were not citizens or simply because they did not provide the required documents within the time frames allowed by the state. (See fig. 3.) Two of the remaining 3 states reported that the primary reason for the decline was that individuals were discouraged from applying because of the requirement or were not responding to states’ requests for documentation of citizenship. The extent of the decline in Medicaid enrollment due to the requirement in some individual states or nationally was unknown because not all states track the effect of the requirement on enrollment. However, 1 state that had begun tracking the effect reported (1) denying an average of 15.6 percent of its monthly applications because of insufficient citizenship documentation in the first 7 months following implementation and (2) terminating eligibility for an average of 3.2 percent of beneficiaries at redetermination per month over the same period and for the same reason. Overall, these denials and terminations represented over 18,000 individuals, who the state generally believed were eligible citizens. While not tracking the effect of the requirement on enrollment explicitly, 10 other states that attributed enrollment declines at least in part to applicants who were delayed or denied coverage also reported increases in monthly denials ranging from 1 to 14 percent after implementing the requirement. States reporting a decline in Medicaid enrollment differed in their views of the effects of the requirement on enrollment after the first year of implementation. Of the 22 states that reported a decline in enrollment, 17 states responded that they expected the downward enrollment trend to continue. Five of these states indicated that the declines would level off within approximately 1 year of implementation, citing, for example, a drop-off in terminations once their current beneficiaries have successfully documented their citizenship. Ten of the 17 states reported that they were unsure how long enrollment declines would continue or generally expected the trend to continue indefinitely. A few of these states noted concern about the ongoing effect on new applicants who will be unfamiliar with the requirement and may be denied enrollment or discouraged from applying. The remaining 5 of 22 states reported that they did not expect the decline to continue. Variation in the effects of the requirement on individuals’ access may have resulted from different state enrollment policies. For example, states that reported a previous reliance on mail-in applications and redeterminations were more likely to report a decline in Medicaid enrollment. About two- thirds of the 22 states that reported a decline in enrollment indicated that individuals most commonly applied by mail before the requirement was implemented. In contrast, the majority of the 12 states that reported no change in enrollment reported that individuals most frequently applied in person before the requirement was implemented. In addition, prior to implementation, 6 states had documentation policies in place that were similar to the requirement. Three of these 6 states reported no change in enrollment, with 1 explaining that it was because the state already required (1) proof of birth to verify age and family relationship and (2) proof of identity for adults. Two of the 6 states reported a decline in enrollment caused by the requirement. Another enrollment policy that may have influenced the requirement’s effect on access to Medicaid coverage was the amount of time states allowed individuals to comply with the requirement—otherwise known as reasonable opportunity periods. In total, 33 states reported the number of days they allowed applicants and beneficiaries to meet the requirement before denying applications or terminating eligibility, with limits generally ranging from 10 days to 1 year. Nine of the 33 states reported allowing applicants 30 days or less, and 4 of these states also reported a decline in enrollment due to the requirement. A few states reported allowing applicants and beneficiaries an indefinite amount of time to obtain and submit the necessary documentation, provided they were deemed as making a good faith effort. Some states’ written policies indicated that the reasonable opportunity period could be extended, provided the individual notified the state that he or she was making a good faith effort to obtain the documentation but needed more time. The effect of the requirement on access may have also depended on whether the individual was a new applicant or a beneficiary at redetermination. Applicants who declare themselves citizens are not eligible for Medicaid coverage until they submit the required documentation, while beneficiaries at redetermination maintain their eligibility while collecting documents as long as they are within the reasonable opportunity period allowed by the state or deemed as making a good faith effort to comply with the requirement. For example, a pregnant woman at redetermination is eligible to have her 20-week ultrasound covered by Medicaid, even though she has not yet submitted her documentation to the state. In contrast, a pregnant woman who is a new Medicaid applicant would not be determined eligible for coverage until she submits her documentation (see fig. 4). In addition, applicants who were born out of state may have faced additional delays while attempting to obtain documentation from their birth state. For example, one state noted that it could take 6 months or more to obtain a birth certificate from another state. In addition, applicants in some states were given less time than beneficiaries to meet the requirement. Of the 33 states that provided information on their reasonable opportunity periods, 13 states reported that the time allowed for providing documentation was longer for beneficiaries at redetermination than for applicants, with this difference ranging from 24 to 320 days. Five of the 13 states reported allowing 45 days for applicants and 300 days or more for beneficiaries. States may offer more flexibility to Medicaid beneficiaries as CMS officials told us that for these individuals the state cannot terminate benefits without documenting that the beneficiary has not made a good faith effort to provide the necessary documentation. Although states reported investing resources to implement the requirement, potential fiscal benefits for the federal government and states are uncertain. To implement the requirement and assist individuals with compliance, all of the 44 states took a number of administrative measures, such as providing additional training for eligibility workers and hiring additional staff, and some also reported committing financial resources. Despite these measures, however, states reported that as a result of the requirement, individuals needed more assistance in person and it was taking the state longer on average to complete applications and redeterminations. According to states, two particular aspects of the requirement increased the burden of implementing it: (1) that documents must be originals and (2) the list of acceptable documents was complex and did not allow for exceptions. While CMS estimated federal and state savings from the requirement, the estimates may be overstated. All 44 states reported taking a number of administrative measures to implement the requirement and assist individuals with compliance. Measures most frequently taken by states included training eligibility workers, revising application and redetermination forms, conducting vital statistics data matches, and modifying information technology systems. For example, 1 state reported that in addition to training 18,000 staff on the requirement, it also provided training and information to community agencies, consumer advocates, and providers on how to assist individuals with compliance. Another state established data matches with Indian Health Services to obtain hospital records that met the requirement and built a Web site on which eligibility workers could search the state’s vital records to document citizenship. To supplement the efforts of eligibility workers, 3 states reported having formed special units of staff focused entirely on assisting individuals to meet the requirement, particularly in difficult cases where eligibility workers had been unsuccessful in their attempts to help individuals comply. One of those states reported that it was in the process of expanding the size of its team from 22 workers to 40 workers. Table 2 lists the administrative measures frequently reported by states. Beyond these administrative measures, 40 percent of the 44 states reported having appropriated funds for implementation or planned to do so in future years. Specifically, 12 states reported that funds were appropriated in their state fiscal year 2007 to implement the requirement, which for the 10 states that specified the amount totaled over $28 million, with appropriations ranging from $350,000 to $10 million in individual states. Further, 15 states budgeted funds for implementation costs in state fiscal year 2008. While many states did not specifically appropriate funds toward implementing the requirement in state fiscal year 2007, this may have been due, in part, to the timing of the requirement within the budget year. States may not be budgeting funds for future years for various reasons, including that the burden of the requirement may decrease after the first year of implementation or that the state may face other budget constraints. For example, one state Medicaid office that reported a significant backlog in applications and redeterminations as a result of the requirement requested funds for implementation in state fiscal year 2008 and planned to renew those requests in state fiscal years 2009 and 2010, but was not sure whether the state legislature would appropriate the funds. Despite investments of resources, most states reported that the requirement resulted in the state spending more time completing applications and redeterminations and individuals needing more assistance in person during the process. Of the 44 states, 28 states reported increases in the level of assistance provided to clients in person, and 35 states reported an increase in the amount of time it took the state to complete applications and redeterminations. (See fig. 5.) States reporting no change in the level of in-person assistance or time spent completing applications and redeterminations since implementation were frequently states where individuals primarily applied for and renewed Medicaid enrollment in person prior to the requirement. Of the 35 states that reported increases in enrollment processing time, most reported that the requirement added 5 or more minutes per case to the processing time for applications and redeterminations. While only 1 of the 35 states expected an increase of less than 5 minutes per case, 9 states estimated an additional 5 to 15 minutes per case, and 16 states expected the requirement to add over 15 minutes of processing time per application or redetermination, well above the 5 minutes estimated by CMS in the interim final rule. One of these 16 states reported processing an average of over 150,000 applications per month in the 8 months following implementation. In that state, assuming an increase in processing time of a minimum of 16 minutes per application since implementing the requirement, this would have added at least 40,000 hours of staff time per month. Other states emphasized that the effect of the requirement on workload goes beyond the amount of time necessary to complete applications and redeterminations. For example, one state reported a 60 percent increase in phone calls (from 24,000 to 39,000 per month), a tenfold increase in voice messages (from 1,200 to 11,000 per month), and an 11 percent increase in the amount of time spent on each call. Though the requirement represented a change in enrollment procedures for most states, states reported that certain aspects of the requirement specified under federal regulations by CMS increased their implementation burden. More than 80 percent of states (36 of 44) reported facing administrative challenges in implementing the requirement, and many attributed the challenges to two specific aspects of the requirement outlined in the regulations, namely (1) that documents must be originals and (2) that the list of acceptable documentation was complex and did not allow for exceptions. In fact, nearly all states (42 of the 44) reported that having to provide original documentation posed a barrier to eligible citizens’ meeting the requirement. Further, many states also reported that mandating originals affected state workload primarily because individuals did not feel comfortable mailing the documents to the state and instead began presenting them in person. With regard to the list of acceptable documents, states reported that the list was complex, often confusing both individuals and eligibility workers, and left states with no discretion to allow exceptions. For example, 1 state that documented citizenship for Medicaid prior to enactment of the DRA noted that when acceptable documentation was not available, the state made an assessment based on a preponderance of evidence, which included certain tribal documents excluded from CMS’s list. Thirty-four states reported that an individual’s inability to provide documents other than those defined under federal regulations by CMS created a barrier to individuals’ compliance with the requirement. Table 3 presents some of the challenges reported by states to implement the requirement. When developing its interim final rule, CMS officials said that CMS considered the specifications of the DRA and other existing federal policies on documenting citizenship, including policies of SSA. CMS officials told us that after meeting the specifications of the DRA, the agency modeled its regulations after the policy established by SSA for documenting citizenship when individuals apply for a Social Security number. Specifically, SSA’s policy mandates that documents be originals and includes a hierarchy of documents with restrictions on the use of less reliable documents. Also, the list of acceptable documents identified by CMS mirrors SSA’s list with only a few exceptions. In contrast, however, SSA’s policy allows more flexibility in special cases. For example, when a U.S.-born applicant for a Social Security number does not have any of the documents from the list, SSA’s policy allows staff to work with their supervisors to determine what would be acceptable in those cases. CMS officials told us that CMS’s list of acceptable documents represents a significant expansion of what was included in the DRA provision and is exhaustive and that they were not aware of any case where an individual was unable to provide any document from the list. To assist states and individuals in complying with documenting citizenship, CMS included some important tools in the regulations. For example, the regulations allow states to use data matches with state vital statistics agencies to verify citizenship and with other government agencies to verify identity, which could alleviate the need for individuals to submit original documents. While many states reported conducting data matches on behalf of individuals, several also expressed concerns that such matches required additional resources and could not be done for individuals born out of state. One state reported conducting 60,000 on-line inquiries per month into the state’s vital records system after implementing the requirement. In one area of the state, however, nearly all children were born across state lines and therefore the state could not electronically verify their citizenship. The state reported that verifying citizenship for children in that portion of the state was especially difficult. While CMS officials confirmed that there is no nationwide database for verifying citizenship, they also told us that there are currently initiatives under way in more than one state to share vital statistics with other states through data matches. Though CMS expected some savings to result from the requirement in fiscal year 2008, the estimate did not account for the cost to states and the federal government to implement the requirement. CMS’s Office of the Actuary estimated that the requirement would result in $50 million in savings for the federal government and $40 million in savings for states in fiscal year 2008, with all savings resulting from terminations of eligibility for individuals who were not citizens. Specifically, CMS assumed that 50,000 noncitizen beneficiaries (which represent less than 1 percent of Medicaid enrollment nationwide) would prove ineligible for Medicaid benefits and be terminated from the program. Though CMS authorized states to claim federal Medicaid matching funds for administrative expenditures related to implementing the requirement, and 15 states reported budgeting funds for 2008 in addition to the numerous other measures being taken by states, CMS’s estimate of savings did not account for any increase in administrative expenditures by states or the federal government. CMS expected, however, that states would experience higher administrative costs during the first year of implementation with these costs decreasing in later years. In addition to not accounting for the cost of the requirement, survey results indicated that CMS may have overestimated the potential savings from the requirement because the intended effect of the requirement, that is, to prevent ineligible noncitizens from receiving Medicaid benefits, may be less prevalent than expected. When asked about potential savings from the requirement, only 5 of the 44 states reported expecting the requirement to result in a decrease in their expenditures for Medicaid benefits in state fiscal year 2008, due in large part to individuals who appeared to be eligible citizens who experienced delays in or lost coverage. Only 1 of the 5 states expecting savings reported that enrollment declines resulted in part from denials or terminations of Medicaid coverage for individuals who were determined ineligible because of their citizenship status. The remaining 39 states expected no savings (20 states) or reported that it was too early to know (19 states). Several of the 20 states that expected no savings in 2008 reported that though some individuals have experienced delays in coverage, those individuals were eligible citizens and would eventually provide the required documentation and receive coverage. In addition, 2 of these 20 states noted that they were not inappropriately financing Medicaid benefits for noncitizens in the past and so expected no savings. Of the 19 states that were unsure how the requirement would affect expenditures, 2 were still tracking the effects of the requirement. Another of these 19 states—a state that reported a decline in enrollment as a result of implementing the requirement—noted that it was difficult to determine whether it would result in lower costs or whether costs would increase, as the state expected individuals would wait to enroll until they were ill or injured, rather than receive preventive care that is less costly to provide. We provided a draft of this report to CMS for comment and received a written response, which is included in this report as appendix II. CMS also provided technical corrections, which we incorporated as appropriate. CMS commented that it generally did not disagree with the approach of our study, but raised several concerns regarding the sufficiency of the underlying data for, and certain aspects of, our findings. In particular, CMS characterized the report’s conclusions as overstating the effect of the requirement on enrollment, and stated it had concerns about the fact that the states did not submit data to substantiate their responses to the survey questions on which we based our findings. CMS also commented on our findings related to the challenges posed by the requirement for states and individuals and the cost to states of implementing the requirement. Specific concerns raised and comments made by CMS, and our evaluation, follow. Regarding the sufficiency of underlying data for certain findings, CMS commented that our survey asked states about the effects of the requirement on enrollment, although states did not provide data to validate their responses. In addition, CMS expressed concerns that the draft report appeared to draw broad conclusions about the effect of the requirement from data provided by one state. The purpose of our work was to report on the initial effects of the requirement. Absent national CMS data on the effects and because state Medicaid offices were largely responsible for implementing the requirement, we determined they were the best source for this information. Though not all states could quantify the effect of the requirement on enrollment, 22 states reported that the requirement resulted in decreases in enrollment, 12 reported that the requirement had no effect on enrollment, and 10 reported not knowing the effect of the requirement on enrollment. We disagree with CMS’s assertion that the draft report drew broad conclusions about the effect of the requirement on enrollment from one state’s data. The report clearly indicates that these data are from a single state and further notes that the extent of the decline in Medicaid enrollment due to the requirement in some individual states and nationally is unknown. CMS raised concerns about one survey question that asked states that reported enrollment declines due to the requirement the reasons for those declines and also about the level of information provided regarding the degree to which the requirement deterred nonqualified aliens from applying for Medicaid. With regard to the first concern, in responding to our survey, states could check an option that said enrollment declines were caused by the delays in or losses of coverage for individuals who appeared eligible. CMS objected to the use of “appeared eligible,” noting that the term is vague and subjective and that it tends to lead the respondent to certain conclusions. However, as we explain in the report, asking states to assess the citizenship status of individuals is consistent with most states’ experience in making such determinations under the self- attestation policies that were in effect prior to the DRA provision. With regard to the second concern, we agree with CMS that our report provides limited information about the extent to which the requirement is deterring nonqualified aliens from applying for Medicaid. However, the report does discuss whether CMS had evidence that such individuals were falsely declaring citizenship when applying for Medicaid. Specifically, our report notes that CMS in its comments to the 2005 OIG report on state self- attestation policies acknowledged that the OIG did not find problems regarding false allegations of citizenship, and CMS was not aware of any such problems. CMS commented that the draft report overstated the effect of the requirement on enrollment because the majority of states reporting enrollment declines attributed the declines primarily to delays in receiving coverage rather than denials of coverage. Our report notes the implications for individuals of such delays in coverage. The report points out, for example, that a pregnant woman who is a citizen may be forced to forgo needed prenatal care while her coverage is delayed by efforts to meet the requirement. CMS also noted that its goal in implementing the requirement was to minimize the incidence of delays in or denials of eligibility due to the requirement. In response to our findings that two aspects of the requirement specified under regulations issued by CMS—namely that documents be originals and that the list of acceptable documents is complex and does not allow for exceptions—presented challenges to states and individuals, CMS commented that the agency has attempted to provide as much flexibility as possible and that other federal agencies require original documentation. Nonetheless, our survey results clearly indicated that these two aspects of the requirement are viewed by most states as posing barriers to access. In particular, 42 of 44 states reported that having to provide original documentation posed a barrier to eligible citizens’ meeting the requirement, and 34 states reported that an individual’s inability to provide documents other than those defined under federal regulations by CMS created a barrier to compliance. Further, while the report explains that CMS modeled its regulations after SSA’s policy for documenting citizenship when individuals apply for a Social Security number, the report also notes that, unlike CMS, SSA provides for flexibility in special cases. CMS also commented on our finding that CMS’s estimates of potential savings from the requirement in fiscal year 2008 did not account for administrative costs. Specifically, CMS agreed that its estimate did not account for administrative costs incurred by states to implement the requirement, but stated that any such costs would decrease after the first year of implementation. Our report describes that some states reported not having budgeted funds for the requirement in future years and explains that one reason for this may be that the burden of the requirement may decrease after the first year of implementation. However, the ongoing costs of assisting applicants in complying with the requirement may continue to be significant for some states, especially those states that had to substantially modify their enrollment procedures. For example, as noted in the report, due to the requirement, one state faced an additional 40,000 hours of staff time needed per month to process applications. CMS commented that it was not surprised that states reported facing challenges, given that the report’s findings were based on states’ experiences after less than 1 year of implementing the requirement. While agreeing that the requirement posed challenges for individuals and states, CMS asserted that these initial challenges have diminished and will continue to do so. Based on our survey responses, states largely do not share CMS’s optimism in this regard. In addition to describing the initial effects of the requirement, which in states’ perspectives have included enrollment declines and increased administrative burdens, our report includes additional indicators that the effects states experienced in the first year will continue at least to some extent in the future. For example, 17 of the 22 states that reported a decline in enrollment due to the requirement reported that they expected the downward trend in enrollment to continue, with some expecting the decline to continue indefinitely. In addition, 15 states reported already having budgeted funds for the requirement in state fiscal year 2008. CMS also emphasized actions it has taken to implement the requirement, such as issuing a letter to state Medicaid directors, publishing an interim final rule, and working on a final rule to be issued shortly. Our report describes the steps taken by CMS to implement the requirement. With regard to CMS’s work on a final rule, we modified our report to indicate CMS’s plans to issue such a rule shortly. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of HHS, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or cosgrovej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. Federal regulations published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) identify primary, or tier 1, documents that are considered sufficient to establish citizenship. Under the regulations, if individuals do not have primary evidence, they are expected to produce secondary, or tier 2, evidence of citizenship as well as evidence of identity. If neither primary nor secondary evidence of citizenship is available, individuals may provide third tier evidence of citizenship with accompanying evidence of identity. If primary evidence of citizenship is unavailable, secondary and third tier evidence do not exist or cannot be obtained in a reasonable time period, and the individual was born in the United States, then the individual may provide fourth tier evidence of citizenship, along with evidence of identity. See table 4 for a list of acceptable documents to prove citizenship and table 5 for acceptable identity documents. Kathryn Allen, Director, led the engagement through its initial phases. In addition, Susan Anthony, Assistant Director; Susan Barnidge; Laura Brogan; Elizabeth T. Morrison; and Hemi Tewarson made key contributions to this report.

Summary: The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) included a provision that requires states to obtain documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship or nationality when determining eligibility of Medicaid applicants and current beneficiaries; self-attestation of citizenship and nationality is no longer acceptable. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued regulations states must follow in obtaining this documentation. Interested parties have raised concerns that efforts to comply with the requirement will cause eligible citizens to lose access to Medicaid coverage and will be costly for states to implement. GAO was asked to examine how the requirement has affected individuals' access to Medicaid benefits and assess the administrative and fiscal effects of implementing the requirement. To do this work, GAO surveyed state Medicaid offices in the 50 states and the District of Columbia about their perspectives on access issues and the administrative and fiscal effects of the requirement. GAO obtained complete responses from 44 states representing 71 percent of national Medicaid enrollment in fiscal year 2004. GAO also reviewed federal laws, regulations, and CMS guidance. States reported that the citizenship documentation requirement resulted in barriers to access to Medicaid for some eligible citizens. Twenty-two of the 44 states reported declines in Medicaid enrollment due to the requirement, and a majority of these states attributed the declines to delays in or losses of Medicaid coverage for individuals who appeared to be eligible citizens. Of the remaining states, 12 reported that the requirement had no effect and 10 reported they did not know the requirement's effect on enrollment. Not all of the 22 states reporting declines could quantify enrollment declines due specifically to the requirement, but a state that had begun tracking the effect identified 18,000 individuals in the 7 months after implementation whose applications were denied or coverage was terminated for inability to provide the necessary documentation, though the state believed most of them to be eligible citizens. Further, states reporting a decline in enrollment varied in their impressions about the requirement's effect on enrollment after the first year of implementation. States' enrollment policies and whether an individual was an applicant or a beneficiary may have influenced the requirement's effect on access to Medicaid. For example, states that relied primarily on mail-in applications before the requirement were more likely to report declines in enrollment than states where individuals usually applied in person. In addition, the requirement may have more adversely affected applicants than beneficiaries because applicants were given less time to comply in some states and were not eligible for Medicaid benefits until they documented their citizenship. Although states reported investing resources to implement the requirement, potential fiscal benefits for the federal government and states are uncertain. All 44 states reported taking administrative measures to implement the requirement and assist individuals with compliance. In addition, 10 states reported that a total of $28 million was appropriated in state fiscal year 2007, and 15 states budgeted funds for implementation costs in state fiscal year 2008. Despite these measures, states reported that the requirement has increased the level of assistance needed by individuals and amount of time spent by states during the enrollment process. States specified two aspects of the requirement as increasing the burden for them and for individuals: that documents had to be originals and the list of acceptable documents was complex and did not allow for exceptions. Further, although CMS estimated the requirement would result in savings for the federal government and states of $90 million for fiscal year 2008, states' responses indicated that this estimate may be overstated for two reasons. Specifically, CMS did not account for the increased administrative expenditures reported by states, and the agency's estimated savings from ineligible, noncitizens no longer receiving benefits may be less than anticipated. In commenting on a draft of the report, CMS raised concerns about the conclusions drawn from the survey responses as to the requirement's effect on access, mainly that states did not submit data to support their responses.