Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, with the federal government matching most state Medicaid expenditures using a statutory formula that determines a federal matching rate for each state. Medicaid is a significant component of federal and state budgets, with estimated total outlays of $554 billion in fiscal year 2015, of which $347 billion is expected to be financed by the federal government and $207 billion by the states. An important health care safety net, Medicaid served about 78 million individuals during fiscal year 2014. There are multiple ways to be eligible for Medicaid that relate to an individual’s age, income, and disability status. As a federal-state partnership, both the federal government and the states play important roles in ensuring that Medicaid is fiscally sustainable over time and effective in meeting the needs of the vulnerable populations it serves. States administer their Medicaid programs within broad federal rules and according to individual state plans approved by CMS, the federal agency that oversees Medicaid. States can also seek permission from CMS to provide services under waivers of traditional Medicaid requirements, for example to provide services to a segment of the state’s eligible population. To obtain federal matching funds for Medicaid payments to providers, states submit their estimated Medicaid expenditures—their payments for covered services and costs of administering the program—to CMS each quarter for the upcoming quarter. After CMS has approved the estimated expenditures, it makes federal matching funds available to the state for the purpose of making Medicaid payments during the quarter. States typically finance Medicaid payments to providers with a combination of federal funds advanced to them and nonfederal funds (e.g., funds from state and local government sources). Federal matching funds are available to states for different types of payments that states make, including payments made directly to providers for services rendered and payments made to managed care organizations. Under a fee-for-service delivery model, states make payments directly to providers; providers render services to beneficiaries and then submit claims to the state to receive payment. States review and process fee-for-service claims and pay providers based on state- established payment rates for the services provided. Under a managed care delivery model, states pay managed care organizations a set amount per beneficiary; providers render services to beneficiaries and then submit claims to the managed care organization to receive payment. Managed care plans are required to report to the states information on services utilized by Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in their plans— information typically referred to as encounter data. Most states use both fee-for-service and managed care delivery models, although the number of beneficiaries served through managed care has grown. Federal law requires each state to operate a mechanized claims processing system to process and record information about the services provided under both fee-for-service and managed care delivery models. Provider claims and managed care encounters are required to include information about the service provided, including the general type of service; a procedure code that identifies the specific service provided; the location of the service; the date the service was provided; and information about the provider who rendered the service. For services delivered under a fee-for-service delivery model, the claims record must also include the payment amount. Federal law requires states to collect managed care encounter data, but actual payment amounts to individual providers are not required. Home- and community-based services, which include personal care services, are a component of a larger class of health and health-related services and nonmedical supports for individuals of all ages who need care for an extended period of time, broadly referred to as long-term services and supports. Long-term services and supports financed by Medicaid are generally provided in two settings: institutional facilities, such as nursing homes and intermediate-care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities; and home and community settings, such as individuals’ homes or assisted living facilities. Under Medicaid requirements governing the provision of services, states generally must provide institutional care to Medicaid beneficiaries, while HCBS coverage is generally an optional service. Medicaid spending on long-term services and supports provided in home and community settings has increased dramatically over time—to about $80 billion in 2014—while the share of spending for care in institutions has declined, and HCBS spending now exceeds long-term care spending for individuals in institutions (see fig. 1). All 50 states and the District of Columbia provide long-term care services to some Medicaid beneficiaries in home and community settings. Personal care services are a key component of long-term services and supports and include assistance with activities of daily living, such as bathing and dressing, and in some cases instrumental activities of daily living, such as preparing meals and housekeeping. Personal care services are typically nonmedical services provided by personal care attendants—home-care workers who may or may not have specialized training. Personal care attendants may be employed by a provider agency or self-employed. In some cases, they are friends or family members of the beneficiary and, under certain types of Medicaid PCS programs, can be spouses, parents, or other legally responsible relatives. Under what is known as an agency-directed model, a provider agency employs multiple attendants. The provider agency hires, fires, pays, and trains the attendant to provide personal care services to Medicaid beneficiaries. Under a participant-directed model, beneficiaries or their representatives have the authority to manage personal care services by selecting, hiring, firing, and training attendants themselves and have a greater say in the personal care services the beneficiary receives. Overall, the number of personal care attendants employed is projected to increase by 26 percent from 2014 to 2024. As we recently reported, states have considerable flexibility to establish Medicaid personal care services programs under different provisions of federal law that authorize different types of programs. States may provide personal care services under a Medicaid state plan, a state plan amendment, or a waiver, such as the 1915(c) waiver, referred to as an HCBS Waiver—the most common type of program through which states provide personal care services. Section 1915(c) authorizes states with HHS approval to waive certain traditional Medicaid requirements, allowing states to target services to specific groups and limit the number of beneficiaries served. Program options available under a Medicaid state plan or amendment include State Plan Personal Care Services, State Plan HCBS, and Community First Choice. Individual states can and do have multiple programs operating under different authorities. Some requirements, such as cost neutrality and maintenance of expenditures, are applicable only to specific program options. In addition, under Community First Choice programs, states receive a 6 percentage point increase in their federal matching rate for personal care and other home- and community-based services. The nature of HCBS can complicate both federal and state oversight, including understanding the time frames in which services were delivered, the types of services delivered, and the providers delivering services billed to and paid for by Medicaid. According to numerous HHS OIG reviews and CMS’s annual review of Medicaid improper payments, the provision of Medicaid personal care services is at high risk for improper payments. For example: In 2012, the OIG issued a report synthesizing results from 23 individual reviews of states’ programs conducted over a 6-year timeframe between 2006 and 2012. Then, in October 2016, it issued an investigative advisory to CMS regarding Medicaid personal care services based on more than 200 investigations opened since the 2012 report. The HHS OIG concluded that existing controls and safeguards intended to prevent improper payments in the Medicaid program and to ensure patient safety and quality of care were often ineffective. Problems the HHS OIG found included: lack of details on personal care services claims, including missing dates for when services were provided and lack of information identifying the provider of services; lack of evidence that services were rendered; and lack of prepayment controls to prevent payments for home-based personal care services when a beneficiary is in an institution. The HHS OIG also noted that federal and state Medicaid investigations have found an increasing volume of fraud involving personal care attendants. Of particular concern were personal care services provided under the Participant-Directed Option, where the beneficiary has direct responsibility over the care they receive and a budget to pay personal care attendants. These findings highlight the need to have better information about the identity of the individuals providing personal care services. CMS reported for 2014 that Medicaid personal care services accounted for an estimated $2.2 billion in improper fee-for-service payments and had the third-highest improper payment rate of the major categories of service, estimated at 6.3 percent. Factors that CMS found contributed to improper personal care services payments included a lack of documentation verifying that beneficiaries received services; a lack of documentation of the specific services provided; and missing or incorrect documentation on the amount, or units, of services provided. Two CMS data systems collect Medicaid data from providers’ records of services rendered and total Medicaid expenditures by broad Medicaid categories of service, including for personal care services. Based on our assessment of the data collected from the two data systems, these data can be reliably used to provide a summary description of the provision of and spending on personal care services, including aggregate annual spending and proportion of Medicaid beneficiaries that received these services. These data suggest wide variation among states in the provision of and spending on personal care services. Two CMS data systems collect data related to the provision of and spending on Medicaid personal care services at the state and national level. Both data systems contain data collected by states and submitted to CMS. Each system has a different purpose and the type and scope of the data each collects reflects its purpose. The Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) was established to collect detailed information on the services rendered to individual Medicaid beneficiaries. The Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System (MBES) was established for states to report total aggregate expenditures for Medicaid services across broad service categories. MSIS is a national data system maintained by CMS that collects data from state records on fee-for-service claims for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries and managed care encounter records for services delivered through managed care. Each state transmits digital files to CMS quarterly using MSIS. MSIS was designed to provide CMS with a detailed, national database of Medicaid program information to support a broad range of program management functions, including health care research and evaluation, program utilization and spending forecasting, and analyses of policy alternatives. MSIS collects information on the beneficiary receiving services and on the services provided. Beneficiary information includes a beneficiary’s age and basis for Medicaid eligibility. Information on the services provided includes: the date the service was provided; the place where the service was provided; the general type of service provided; a procedure code that identifies the specific service provided; and a provider identification number that identifies the Medicaid provider who rendered services. Payment information is collected for fee-for-service claims, which are paid by the state, but not for managed care encounters, which are paid for by managed care organizations that contract with the state. Federal law requires that all data submitted be consistent with the standardized MSIS format and data elements as a condition of receiving federal reimbursement for mechanized claims processing systems. CMS reviews these MSIS files for initial quality and proper formatting and returns any files that do not pass its quality tests back to states for correction and resubmission. State MSIS submissions are compiled into calendar year data sets that provide beneficiary-level data on eligibility, service utilization, and payments for every state Medicaid program. CMS can make the data files available for analysis to researchers and others that submit a data use agreement approved by CMS. MBES is a national expenditure reporting system that collects each states’ total aggregate Medicaid expenditures reported to CMS by broad categories of service for the purpose of states’ obtaining the federal share of their payments to providers and for other approved expenditures. States are required to use this web-based system to input and transmit electronically a form referred to as the CMS-64 on a quarterly basis. MBES contains state Medicaid expenditures in over 80 broad categories of services and total expenditures for each state. These data come from CMS-64 reports, which CMS requires states to use to report their Medicaid expenditures through specified, standard categories of service such as inpatient hospital services, nursing facility services, physician services, and HCBS services by type of program. For each category of service, the CMS-64 collects a state’s total Medicaid expenditure, the federal share, and the nonfederal share. The CMS-64 does not collect beneficiary-specific payment information or expenditures for specific types of services. For example, all expenditures for regular inpatient hospital services are reported on one category-of-service line. Data from the CMS-64 do, however, represent the most reliable and comprehensive information on aggregate Medicaid spending, including spending on program administration. In addition to its primary purpose of capturing states’ expenditures for purposes of states obtaining federal matching payments for their expenditures, MBES data are used to produce national and state-specific Medicaid expenditure reports by the standard categories of services. CMS compiles the reports by federal fiscal year and makes these yearly expenditure files available to the public on its website. Available information from MSIS and MBES suggest that the provision of and spending on personal care services varies widely across states. Specifically, the most recent and complete MSIS claims data available to us for 35 states from calendar year 2012 suggest variation across these states in the provision of personal care services, including differences in: the types of beneficiaries served, the delivery model under which they are served (fee-for-service or managed care), and the average payment per beneficiary. Similarly, MBES expenditure data for all states for calendar years 2012 through 2015 show variation across states in total spending on personal care services and spending by type of program. Analysis of calendar year 2012 MSIS data for 35 states indicates that, overall, nearly 3 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries in these states— about 1.5 million individuals—received personal care services at least once. However, the percentage of beneficiaries receiving services varied among the states. As illustrated in figure 2, the percentage of each state’s Medicaid beneficiaries who used personal care services at least once ranged from less than 1 percent of beneficiaries in 9 states to almost 17 percent in 1 state. MSIS data also show wide variation in the percentage of beneficiaries who received personal care services across the four main eligibility groups we analyzed (children, adults, aged individuals, and disabled individuals). For example, as illustrated in figure 3, all 35 of the states with available data provided personal care services to aged and disabled beneficiaries, but some more so than others. Across the 35 states, about 13 percent of aged and about 9 percent of disabled beneficiaries received personal care services in 2012. The proportions receiving personal care services in individual states ranged from less than 1 percent to about 32 percent of aged and from less than 1 percent to 36 percent of disabled beneficiaries. The average percentage of adults and children who received personal care services across all the 35 states was much smaller than the aged and disabled groups (less than 1 percent), and the data suggest that a few states did not provide any personal care services to individuals in the adult and children groups. When examining just those beneficiaries who received personal care services in 2012, MSIS data show that most were in the disabled or aged eligibility categories, but that the composition of each state’s recipients varied widely. Of the nearly 1.5 million beneficiaries who received personal care services that year in the 35 states, the vast majority— nearly 86 percent—were either aged or disabled. Disabled beneficiaries represented 48 percent and aged beneficiaries represent 37 percent of all those receiving personal care services. Children and adults represented a much smaller share of the beneficiaries that received personal care services in 2012 in these states, at 10 percent and 4 percent, respectively (see figure 4). However, children and adults made up more than 90 percent of the disabled group in the 35 states. The 2012 MSIS data for the 35 states show that most personal care services are provided under a fee-for service delivery model, rather than under a managed care delivery model. About 80 percent of personal care services in the 35 states were provided under a fee-for-service model, with 20 percent delivered through a managed care model. Most of the claims under fee-for-service models were for services provided to disabled beneficiaries, while most of the services under managed care models were provided to aged beneficiaries (see figure 4). The majority of the 35 states (20) provided 100 percent of their personal care services under a fee-for-service model, and nearly all of the remaining states provided the majority of their services (i.e., greater than 50 percent) this way; only 3 states provided a majority of personal care services through a managed care model. No states relied exclusively on a managed care model for all beneficiaries, although one state—Tennessee—used a managed care model exclusively for the adult eligibility group. MSIS fee-for-service claims data for 2012 show variation in the average total payments made per beneficiary and by type of beneficiary for personal care services across the 35 states. For beneficiaries who received personal care services under a fee-for-service model that year, the average total payment per beneficiary was $9,785. As illustrated in figure 6, average total payments per beneficiary varied across eligibility groups. For example, average total payments for personal care services per beneficiary ranged from $1,742 for adults to more than $10,786 for disabled beneficiaries. In addition, average total payments varied significantly across states. Across all eligibility groups, average total payments for personal care services ranged from $2,639 in Wyoming to $33,857 in Delaware, a nearly 13-fold difference. For disabled beneficiaries, the range in average total payment was even greater—from $3,131 to $48,856—a nearly 16-fold difference, also represented by Wyoming and Delaware. Expenditure data contained in the MBES, as reported by all 50 states and the District of Columbia, revealed total personal care spending on a fee- for-service basis of about $15 billion in calendar year 2015. As illustrated in figure 6, however, more than three-quarters of the reported spending was for personal care services provided under two types of programs: State Plan Personal Care Services and Community First Choice. Specifically, based on state-reported data, spending under State Plan Personal Care Services was slightly higher in 2015 at nearly $6 billion than the $5.7 billion in spending for Community First Choice. These two programs have fewer and less stringent federal oversight requirements than the HCBS Waiver and State Plan HCBS programs. In contrast, spending on personal care services under these two programs was less overall, with spending on personal care services under HCBS Waiver programs totaling $3.2 billion and $34 million under State Plan HCBS programs. For HCBS Waiver and State Plan Personal Care Services programs, states reported less than 1 percent of their expenditures for personal care services under the Participant-Directed Option. The state-reported expenditure data contained in the MBES reveal how total spending on personal care services has changed over time, both in total amounts and in the amounts associated with each program type. As illustrated in in figure 8, state-reported expenditure data suggest that after a spending increase of over $2 billion in from calendar year 2012 to 2013, total fee-for-service spending on personal care services increased more slowly, by about $100 million a year from 2013 through 2015. Moreover, the data show a significant share of spending on personal care services under the Community First Choice program beginning in 2013. CMS’s two data systems provide some basic and aggregate information on the provision of and spending on personal care services. However, in order to provide effective oversight, CMS needs detailed data on personal care services that are timely, complete, consistent, and accurate, including data on who provided the service, the type and amount of services provided, when services were provided, and the amount the state paid for services. We found that the detailed data collected by the two systems were not always timely, complete, consistent, or accurate, which limits the usefulness of these data for CMS oversight. CMS does not collect data that are timely, or are sufficiently complete, consistent, and accurate to effectively monitor the provision of and spending on Medicaid personal care services. Medicaid personal care services claims and encounter data collected by CMS through MSIS are not timely, and available data are often incomplete and inconsistent, based on our analysis of 2012 data from 35 states. States are required by federal law to develop and operate their own claims-processing and information-retrieval systems and submit data to CMS, through MSIS, that includes information on the specific services provided, the beneficiaries receiving these services, and the providers delivering these services. Federal law requires states to submit data that are consistent with the standardized MSIS format and data elements as a condition of receiving federal reimbursement for mechanized claims processing systems. CMS has established specific reporting guidance for some of these data elements but not for others. MSIS was designed to provide CMS with a detailed, national database of Medicaid program data to support a broad range of program management functions, including health care research and evaluation by CMS and other researchers, program utilization and spending forecasting, and analyses of policy alternatives. The information CMS collects through MSIS from states is not timely. Data are typically not available for analysis and reporting by CMS or others for several years after services are provided. This happens for two reasons. First, although states have 6 weeks following the completion of a quarter to report their claims data, their reporting can be delayed as a result of providers and managed care plans not submitting data in a timely manner, according to the CMS contractor responsible for compiling data files of Medicaid claims and encounters. For example, providers may submit claims for fee-for-service payments to the state late and providers may need to resubmit claims to make adjustments or corrections before they can be paid by the state. Second, the contractor analyzes the MSIS data submitted by the states and compiles annual person-level claims files that are in an accessible format. The contractor also conducts quality-control checks and corrects data errors and consolidates multiple records that may exist for one claim. This process, for one year of data, can take several years and, as a result, when information from claims and encounters becomes available for use by CMS for purposes of program management and oversight, it can be several years old. Information CMS collects from states through MSIS is also incomplete in two ways. First, specific data on beneficiaries’ personal care services were not included in the calendar year 2012 MSIS data for 16 states. Nevertheless, these 16 states received federal matching funds for the $4.2 billion in total fee-for-service payments for personal care services that year—about 33 percent of total expenditures for personal care services reported by all states (see figure 9). Second, even for the 35 states for which 2012 MSIS claims and encounter data were available, certain data elements collected by CMS were incomplete. For example, for the records we analyzed, 20 percent included no payment information, 15 percent included no provider identification number to identify the provider of service, and 34 percent did not identify the quantity of services provided (see figure 10). Incomplete data limit CMS’s ability to track spending changes and corroborate spending with reported expenditures because they lack important information on a significant amount of Medicaid payments for personal care services. For example, among the 2012 claims for personal care services under a fee-for-service delivery model, claims without a provider identification number accounted for about $4.9 billion in total payments. Similarly, payments for fee-for-service claims with missing information on the quantity of personal care services provided totaled about $5.1 billion. Even when key information was included in claims and encounter data, it was often inconsistent, which limits the effectiveness of the data to identify questionable claims and encounters. For purposes of oversight, a complete record (claims or encounters) should include data for each visit with a provider or caregiver, with specified dates of service, and it should use a clearly specified unit of service (e.g., 15 minutes) along with a standard definition of the type of service provided. These data allow CMS and states to analyze claims to identify potential fraud and abuse. The following examples illustrate inconsistencies in the data from the 35 states: States used hundreds of different procedure codes for personal care services. Procedure codes on submitted claims and encounters were inconsistent in three ways: the number of codes used by states; the use of both national and state-specific codes; and the varying definitions of different codes across states. More than 400 unique procedure codes were used by the 35 states. CMS does not require that states use standard procedure codes for personal care services; instead, states have the discretion to use state-based procedure codes of their own choosing or national procedure codes. As a result, the procedure codes used for similar services can differ from state to state, limiting CMS’s ability to use this data as a tool to compare and track changes in the use of specific personal care services provided to beneficiaries because CMS cannot easily compare similar procedures by comparing service procedure codes. States used widely varying units of service associated with numerous procedure codes. As a result of the numerous procedure codes used by states, the units of service for personal care services varied widely. Depending on the code used, units of service can be in 15-, 30-, or 60-minute increments, or as per diem codes. The absence of information about the unit of service in the millions of records for personal care services, combined with states’ use of hundreds of different codes, makes it difficult to efficiently assess the extent that services provided are reasonable. Claims and encounter records generally include the procedure code, but do not identify the unit of service associated with the code. Claims for multiple units of service may be reasonable if the unit represents a 15-minute increment. However, if the unit of service represents an hour the number of units billed may not be reasonable. For example, for a beneficiary requiring 2 hours of personal care services, a claim containing 8 units in a single day is reasonable if the unit of service is 15 minutes but would not be reasonable if the unit of service is an hour. Without consistent procedure codes with defined units of service, the utilization and expenditure analyses done by CMS and others with the data are difficult to complete, including assessing the reasonableness of the amount of services claimed and identifying potentially inappropriate claims. In general, we found that claims for 2012 represented large quantities of services. Among claims with valid quantity of service data—that is, where the claim identified a procedure code and the number of units provided—quantities reported ranged from 1 unit to more than 27,000 units, with an average quantity of 15 units. For the most commonly used procedure, which represents 15 minutes of service by a personal care attendant, the average quantity would translate into nearly 4 hours of personal care services billed as a single claim. For seven states, 100 percent of cases were missing information on the quantity of services delivered. State-reported dates of service were overly broad. In the 35 states whose claims we could review, some claims for personal care services had dates of services (i.e., start and end dates) that spanned multiple days, weeks, and in some cases months. For 12 of the 35 states, 95 percent of their claims were billed for a single day of service. However, in other states, a number of claims were billed over longer time periods. For example, for 10 of the states, 5 percent of claims covered a period of at least 1 month, and 9 states submitted claims that covered 100 or more days. When states report dates of service that are imprecise, it is difficult to determine the specific date for which services were provided and identify whether services were claimed during a period when the beneficiary is not eligible to receive personal care services—for example, when hospitalized for acute care services. Others have also found the poor quality of personal care services data submitted to CMS to be a long-standing problem. Based on numerous reviews of states’ personal care services programs, the HHS OIG determined that the limited or missing information on personal care service providers, dates of service, and quantity of services were an impediment to effective program integrity and oversight. The HHS OIG found that the data could not be used to accurately identify overlapping claims because it was common for providers to submit one claim for multiple instances of personal care services provided over days, weeks, or months. The HHS OIG also found that with overlapping dates it is difficult to identify instances when beneficiaries were receiving institutional services and therefore were ineligible for home-based personal care services. Further, the HHS OIG found that claims for personal care services did not include unique identifiers for personal care attendants and that cases of fraud often involved impossible or improbable volumes of service or service patterns, for example, claims for more than 24 hours in a day or claims for services in multiple beneficiary homes during the same day. The HHS OIG concluded that, if the availability and quality of personal care data were improved, investigators could analyze the data to identify and follow up on aberrancies and questionable billing patterns. Based on its findings, the OIG recommended that CMS takes steps to reduce variation in how states are documenting claims for personal care services, among other recommendations. Medicaid personal care services expenditure data collected from states by CMS and contained in the MBES are not always accurate or complete, according to our analysis of states’ reported expenditures for calendar years 2012 through 2015. CMS requires states to report expenditures for personal care services on specific lines on the CMS-64. The required reporting lines correspond with the specific types of programs under which states have received authority to cover personal care services, and can affect the federal matching payment amounts states receive when seeking federal reimbursement. For example, a 6 percent increase in federal matching is available for services provided through the Community First Choice program. For personal care services provided under the State Plan PSC program, CMS requires states to report their expenditures on one of two lines of the CMS-64. For personal care services provided under the three other programs—HCBS Waiver, State Plan HCBS, and Community First Choice—CMS requires states to report their expenditures for personal care services separately from other types of services provided under each program. CMS requires these states to submit expenditure amounts for specific service types on what CMS refers to as feeder forms—that is, expenditure lines on the CMS-64 that feed into the total HCBS spending amount under a state’s HCBS Waiver program. The MBES system automatically generates the state’s total HCBS Waiver program spending by combining the expenditures reported for each of the various specific services. We found that not all states are reporting their personal care services expenditures accurately, and as result, personal care services expenditures may be underreported or reported in an incorrect category. We compared personal care services expenditures from all states’ CMS- 64 reports for calendar years 2012 through 2015 with each state’s approved programs during this time period and found that about 17 percent of personal care services expenditure lines were not reported correctly. As illustrated in figure 11, nearly two-thirds of the reporting errors were a result of states not separately identifying and reporting personal care services expenditures using the correct reporting lines, as required by CMS. Without separate reporting of personal care expenditures as required, CMS is unable to monitor how spending changes over time across the different program types and have an accurate estimate of the magnitude of potential improper payments for personal care services. The other types of errors involved states erroneously reporting expenditures that did not correspond with approved programs. As a result, CMS is not able to efficiently and effectively identify and prevent states from receiving federal matching funds inappropriately, in part, because it does not have accurate fee-for-service claims data that track payments by personal care program type that is linked with expenditures reported for purpose of federal reimbursement. These errors demonstrate that CMS is not effectively ensuring its reporting requirements for personal care expenditures are met. By not ensuring that states are accurately reporting expenditures for personal care services, CMS is unable to accurately identify total expenditures for personal care services, expenditures by program, and changes over time. According to CMS, expenditures that states report through MBES are subject to a variance analysis, which identifies significant changes in reported expenditures from year to year. However, CMS’s variance analysis did not identify any of the reporting errors that we found. CMS officials told us that they will continue to review states’ quarterly expenditure reports for significant variances and follow up on such variances. CMS has two ongoing actions intended to improve Medicaid claims data collected from states. First, CMS is developing an enhanced Medicaid claims data system—called the Transformed-Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS)—that will replace MSIS. Enhancements being made under T-MSIS include requiring states to report more timely data, additional claims information, and improved CMS checks on the quality of data submitted. Specifically, states will be required to do the following, according to CMS: report data more frequently than they are now required (monthly rather than quarterly), submit a new data file reporting information on the providers of services, including provider identification numbers, and identify for each claim which expenditure line on the CMS-64 corresponds with the type of service covered by the claim. CMS is also improving the quality of data reported by states by subjecting states’ submitted data to thousands of electronic checks to identify obvious errors. Despite the promise of T-MSIS, implementation has faced delays and is not yet complete. Implementation of T-MSIS by all states has been delayed for several years. The original date for nationwide implementation was January 2014; however, according to CMS officials, as of July 2016, 10 states were submitting T-MSIS data to CMS, but not all of the required data were submitted. The agency expects that all states will be submitting T-MSIS claims data by the end of calendar year 2016. However, reaching this goal depends on the remaining states’ timeliness in completing the work needed to successfully transmit the T- MSIS data. It could be a number of years before all states are submitting complete T-MSIS data that include all required data elements, according to officials. Once all states are reporting T-MSIS claims data, including personal care services claims, key data limitations we identified associated with MSIS claims may not be fully addressed. This is because under T-MSIS, CMS has not taken steps to improve the completeness and consistency of personal care services claims data. For example, CMS has not issued guidance to establish: a uniform set of procedure codes to be used by all states to more consistently document type and quantity of personal care services rendered; state reporting requirements for provider identification numbers for personal care attendants. appropriate time periods covered by individual claims—that is, the maximum number of days that a personal care attendant may include in a single claim. In addition, planned improvements in T-MSIS to identify the corresponding expenditure line on the CMS-64 may not be realized. CMS has stated a goal that T-MSIS would identify, for each claim paid in a fee- for-service delivery system, the expenditure line on the CMS-64 that corresponds with the type of service covered by the claim. This goal would allow better accounting for the claims paid and the services for which the claims were made. Further, this linking of the claims with the associated expenditure line could facilitate more accurate state reporting of expenditures on the CMS-64 and allow CMS to effectively reconcile each state’s payments for personal care services with their reported expenditures. However, CMS’s plans to have states link their T-MSIS claims with CMS-64 expenditure lines will be effective only for one personal care services program. For three other programs, T-MSIS claims are not required to be associated with a specific service type. Rather, the claims are identified simply as an HCBS service under one of the three programs. Without this information, T-MSIS claims for personal care services cannot be cross-walked with CMS-64 data on the expenditures for those services. CMS’s second ongoing action to improve Medicaid claims data collected from the states is the establishment of a new Division of Business and Data Analysis. This division is intended to help the agency ensure the quality of T-MSIS data. According to CMS officials, MSIS claims data have generally not been used for program monitoring and oversight, because issues with data timeliness, completeness, and consistency have limited their usefulness for these purposes. Development of T-MSIS is intended to address data issues and the establishment of the new division is intended to facilitate the use of state-collected data by CMS. According to CMS officials, the new division is intended to: work with states to help ensure the completeness and consistency of claims data as states transition to T-MSIS, improve the quality of the data by analyzing the data for anomalies and errors that can be corrected, build the agency’s capacity to use the data for program monitoring, oversight, and reporting, and provide data analysis support for different CMS program offices, including the offices that oversee states’ personal care services programs. According to CMS, the improved data will be used by CMS for program monitoring, policy implementation, improving beneficiary health care, and lowering costs. CMS efforts in building the agency’s data analysis capacity are underway but in the early stages. Improving the quality of the data is a continuous process that depends on identifying specific data needed for oversight functions. According to CMS officials responsible for implementing T-MSIS, while T-MSIS has the capability for improving the quality of data submitted by states, policies and guidance are needed regarding how CMS will use it. CMS recognizes it has an important responsibility to support Medicaid agencies and leverage program data to protect the Medicaid program from fraud, waste, and abuse in part by improving the quality and consistency of Medicaid data reported to CMS and improving the analysis of this data to identify potential risks. However, as of September 2016, neither the division nor the CMS offices responsible for managing different personal care services programs has identified or developed plans for analyzing and using personal care services data for program management and oversight, such as analytical tools and standard reports. Doing so could facilitate necessary changes to improve the quality of the data, clarify T-MSIS reporting requirements, facilitate the integration of claims and expenditure data, and increase the usefulness of claims data for oversight. Federal agencies should collect data that are reasonably free from error and bias, and represent what they purport to represent. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government indicate that appropriate data must be collected to enable program oversight and establish a strong internal control environment. Timely, relevant, and reliable data are needed for decision making, external reporting, and monitoring program operations—for example, to conduct management functions such as tracking the growth in use of and spending on specific Medicaid services; to identify trends related to utilization and payments per service, provider, and beneficiary; and to identify areas at higher risk for fraud, waste, and abuse. Without complete and consistent federal data collected from states, CMS is unable to conduct effective oversight and perform key management functions specific to personal care services, such as ensuring that states report personal care services expenditures correctly; claims for enhanced federal matching funds are accurate, verifying states’ historical spending levels for determining maintenance of expenditure requirements, linking payments from claims with reported expenditures, or providing technical assistance to states to identify improper personal care services payments. Personal care services are an important Medicaid service for millions of vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries. Federal and state spending on Medicaid home- and community-based services, including personal care services, has increased significantly in the last two decades and this growth is projected to continue. These services present high-risk payments for the Medicaid program and have one of the highest improper payment rates of all Medicaid services. In light of these factors, CMS needs complete and consistent information to effectively monitor and oversee these services, which it currently does not collect from states. We found that the data collected from states were often incomplete, inconsistent, or inaccurately reported. CMS’s efforts to improve the quality and accuracy of the data collected from states have not resulted in guidance to states on reporting of personal care services data or plans for using the data for oversight purposes. As a result, issues with the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of personal care services data reported by the states are likely to continue. With better data, CMS could more effectively perform key management functions related specifically to personal care services, such as ensuring that states’ claims for enhanced federal matching funds are accurate and that maintenance of expenditure and cost neutrality requirements are met. To improve the collection of complete and consistent personal care services data and better ensure CMS can effectively monitor the states’ provision of and spending on Medicaid personal care services, we recommend CMS take the following four steps: Establish standard reporting guidance for personal care services collected through T-MSIS to ensure that key data reported by states, such as procedure codes, provider identification numbers, units of service, and dates of service, are complete and consistent; Better ensure, for all types of personal care services programs, that data on provision of personal care services and other HCBS services collected through T-MSIS claims can be specifically linked to the expenditure lines on the CMS-64 that correspond with those particular types of HCBS services; Better ensure that personal care services data collected from states through T-MSIS and MBES comply with CMS reporting requirements; and Develop plans for analyzing and using personal care services data for program management and oversight. We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS concurred with two of our four recommendations, specifically, that the agency better ensure that states comply with reporting requirements and develop plans for analyzing and using data. HHS did not explicitly agree or disagree with the two other recommendations—that the agency establish standard reporting guidance and improve the linkages between CMS-64 and T-MSIS data on personal care services. However, in its response to these two recommendations, HHS stated that the Department had recently published a request for information in the Federal Register intended to gather input on additional reforms and policy options to strengthen the integrity of service delivery and appropriate reporting standards for personal care services and other HCBS. HHS indicated that the information collected will be used to determine the agency’s next steps. In light of our findings of inconsistent and incomplete reporting of claims and encounters, errors in reporting expenditures, and the high risk of improper payments associated with personal care services, we believe that action in response to these two recommendations is needed to improve CMS oversight. HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. HHS’s comments are reprinted in appendix I. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or iritanik@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 key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. In addition to the contact name above, Tim Bushfield, Assistant Director; Perry Parsons, Analyst-in-Charge; Anna Bonelli; Christine Davis; Barbara Hansen; Giselle Hicks; Laurie Pachter; Vikki Porter; Bryant Torres; and Jennifer Whitworth made key contributions to this report.

Summary: A growing share of long-term care spending under Medicaid, a joint federal-state health care program, is for services provided in home and community settings. Medicaid spending on these services—about $80 billion in 2014—now exceeds spending on institutional long term care. Personal care services are key components of long-term, in-home care, providing assistance with basic activities, such as bathing, dressing, and toileting, to millions of individuals seeking to retain their independence and to age in place. However, these services are also at high risk for improper payments, including fraud. Given the expected increase in the demand for and spending on personal care services and risk of improper payments, GAO was asked to examine available data on personal care services and CMS's use of the data. This report: (1) describes the CMS systems that collect data on personal care services and what the data reveal, and (2) examines the extent to which data from these systems can be used for oversight. GAO reviewed information from two CMS data systems, reviewed relevant federal guidance and documents, and interviewed officials and researchers. Two data systems managed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the federal agency that oversees Medicaid—collect information from states on the provision of and spending on personal care services: The Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) collects detailed information from provider claims on services rendered to individual Medicaid beneficiaries and state payments for these services. The Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System (MBES) collects states' total aggregate Medicaid expenditures across 80 broad service categories. Information from these two CMS data systems can be used in the aggregate to describe broadly the provision of and spending on Medicaid personal care services. For example, MBES data show that total fee-for-service spending on these services was at least $15 billion in 2015—up $2.3 billion from 2012. However, the usefulness of the data collected from these two systems for CMS oversight is limited because of data gaps and errors. To provide effective oversight, including decision making, external reporting, and monitoring program operations, CMS needs timely, relevant and reliable data on personal care services rendered and the amount paid. GAO found that the data collected did not always meet these standards. For example: MSIS data were not timely, complete, or consistent. The most recent data available at the time of GAO's audit were for 2012 and only included data for 35 states. Further, 15 percent of claims lacked provider identification numbers, over 400 different procedure codes were used to identify the services, and the quantity and time periods varied widely. Without good data, CMS is unable to effectively monitor who is providing personal care services or the type, amount, and dates of services. CMS may also face challenges determining whether beneficiaries were eligible for services and assessing the reasonableness of the amount of services claimed. MBES data were not always accurate or complete. From 2012 through 2015, GAO found that 17 percent of expenditure lines were not reported correctly. Nearly two-thirds of these errors were due to states not separately identifying personal care services expenditures, as required by CMS. Inaccurate and incomplete reporting limits CMS's ability to ensure federal matching funds are provided consistent with states' approved programs. CMS is developing a new Medicaid claims system to replace MSIS and recently established a new office to support CMS's use of Medicaid data for program management and monitoring. However, CMS has not issued guidance related to reporting of personal care services that addresses the gaps GAO identified, or developed plans to use the data for oversight purposes. Without improved data and plans for how it can be used for oversight, CMS could continue to lack critical information on personal care service expenditures. HHS agreed with two of GAO's recommendations to ensure state compliance with reporting requirements and develop plans to use the data. HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with two others. GAO recommends that CMS improve personal care services data by: establishing standard reporting guidance for key data; ensuring linkage between data on the provision of services and reported expenditures; ensuring state compliance with reporting requirements; and developing plans to use data for oversight.