Background Medicaid Section 1115  Demonstrations Nearly three-quarters of states (37 as of November 2016) have CMS- approved Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations, which allow states to  test new approaches to coverage and to improve quality and access or  generate savings or efficiencies. CMS has approved demonstrations for a  wide variety of purposes. For example, under demonstrations, states  have extended coverage to populations or for services not otherwise  eligible for Medicaid, made payments to providers to incentivize delivery  system improvements, and, more recently, expanded Medicaid to certain  low-income adults by using Medicaid funds to purchase private health  insurance coverage. While state demonstrations vary in size and scope,  many are comprehensive in nature, affecting multiple aspects of states’  Medicaid programs simultaneously. For example, Kansas’s  demonstration, approved in 2012, significantly expands the use of  managed care to deliver physical, behavioral, and long-term care services  to almost all the state’s Medicaid populations, care that for some  populations was previously provided on a fee-for-service basis. The  demonstration also established a funding pool of up to $344 million to  provide payments to hospitals to finance uncompensated care. Kansas’s demonstration expenditures accounted for about 94 percent of  the state’s total Medicaid expenditures in fiscal year 2015. In fiscal year 2015, federal spending under demonstrations represented a  third of all Medicaid spending nationwide. In 10 states, federal spending  on demonstrations represented 75 percent or more of all federal spending  on Medicaid. (See fig. 1.) Demonstrations are typically approved by CMS for an initial 5-year period  (referred to as a demonstration cycle), but some states have operated  portions of their Medicaid programs under a demonstration for decades.  This can be achieved through a series of renewals approved by CMS,  generally occurring every 3 to 5 years. What a state is testing and  implementing under its demonstration can change from one cycle to the  next. States often make changes to their demonstrations, either through  the renewal process or by requesting an amendment during the  demonstration cycle. These changes can be relatively small or can be  significant and can represent testing of a new approach for the state.  For example, at renewal a state could request approval to expand  coverage to a new population or add requirements that beneficiaries  share in the cost of care by paying a monthly premium. CMS Oversight of State- Led Evaluations CMS has long required states to conduct evaluations of section 1115  demonstrations. CMS oversees the evaluations and can influence them  at several key points during the demonstration process. Application review and approval: When a state applies for a  demonstration, CMS reviews the state’s application, which describes  the goals and objectives of the demonstration and what the  demonstration will test, among other things. As part of the review  and approval process, CMS negotiates with the state on the STCs,  including evaluation requirements. These requirements might include,  for example, reporting timeframes and broad standards for the  evaluation, such as standards around the independence of the  evaluator and acceptable evaluation methods. Evaluation design phase: After a demonstration is approved, states  are required to submit an evaluation design to CMS for review and  approval. The evaluation design must discuss, among other things,  the hypotheses that will be tested, the data that will be used, and how  the effects of the demonstration will be isolated from other changes  occurring in the state. During review of the design, CMS can seek  adjustments such as requiring the state to address certain objectives  or using particular performance measures. Demonstration renewal: In the event that a state wishes to renew its  demonstration, it must generally submit an application to CMS at least  1 year before the demonstration is scheduled to expire. The  application must include, among other things, a report presenting the  evaluation’s findings to date, referred to as an interim evaluation  report. CMS can use the information from the interim evaluation  report to negotiate changes in the STCs for the evaluation of the next  demonstration cycle. If CMS renews the demonstration, the evaluation  process starts over with the state submitting a new evaluation design  that reflects changes in what is being tested in the new cycle. Demonstration end: CMS requires states to submit a final evaluation  report for review and approval generally after the end of the  demonstration, at which time the agency can work with the state to,  for example, add clarity and disclose the limitations of the evaluation  before the final evaluation report is made public. Within the framework that CMS has established for state-led evaluations,  states design evaluations to the specifics of their demonstrations. As the  size and scope of demonstrations varies considerably across states, so,  too can evaluations vary in their breadth and complexity. State-led  evaluations may assess the effects of several different policies, each with  its own set of hypotheses—predictions of the effects of the policy—and  methods. For example, a state could evaluate the effects of moving to a  managed care delivery model for providing managed long-term services  and supports (referred to as MLTSS), implementing provider payment  pools aimed at delivery system reform, and expanding coverage to a new  population all within the same demonstration. Each of those three  elements would have its own hypotheses and methods and may have  varying timeframes for the number of years of experience needed to be  able to effectively measure the effects of what is being tested. Federal Evaluations CMS has the authority to initiate its own federal evaluations of section  1115 demonstrations, and states must fully cooperate with any such  evaluations. Between 2014 and 2016, CMS initiated three federal  evaluations that were ongoing as of November 2017. The first evaluation,  initiated in 2014, is a large, multi-state evaluation examining four broad  demonstration types in several states. (See table 1.) According to CMS,  it selected these demonstration types—which together account for tens of  billions of dollars in federal and state Medicaid spending—because they  included policies that the agency considered priority areas for evaluation.  CMS awarded a contract to an evaluation organization to implement the  5-year study. According to CMS, the estimated total cost of this  evaluation for the 5-year life of the contract is $8.3 million. The  evaluation was designed to produce three sets of results: a series of  reports providing contextual information about the demonstrations being  evaluated, referred to as rapid cycle reports; interim evaluation reports  featuring early results of more in-depth analysis; and final evaluation  reports. CMS contracted with another evaluation organization to conduct two  federal evaluations examining demonstrations in single states—Indiana  and Montana—over 4 years. As of September 2017, the estimated cost of  this contract, inclusive of all options, was $8.2 million. In total, spending  for Indiana’s and Montana’s demonstrations was about $2 billion in fiscal  year 2015, including $1.6 billion in federal spending. Indiana: CMS initiated this evaluation in 2015. CMS officials told us  they started this evaluation to better understand how policies in  Indiana’s demonstration, many of which were unprecedented, were  affecting beneficiaries. These policies included, for example, charging  monthly contributions for most newly eligible adults with incomes from  0 to 138 percent of the federal poverty level; imposing a lock-out  period of 6 months for nonpayment of premiums for most people with  incomes above the federal poverty level; and charging co-payments  above statutory levels for non-urgent use of emergency room  services. The federal evaluation is aimed at estimating the effects of  Indiana’s demonstration on health insurance coverage and access to  and use of care, and documenting beneficiary understanding of  enrollment, disenrollment, and copayment policies, among other  things. Montana: CMS initiated this evaluation in 2016. CMS officials told us  they started this evaluation to provide a point of comparison to  Indiana’s demonstration, as Montana was implementing similar  policies to Indiana but with some variations. For example, under  Montana’s demonstration, the state charges premiums to most newly  eligible adults with incomes between 51 and 138 percent of the  federal poverty level; and disenrolls beneficiaries with incomes above  the federal poverty level for nonpayment of premiums, with  reenrollment when overdue premiums are paid. Similar to the federal  evaluation of Indiana’s demonstration, the evaluation of Montana’s  demonstration is aimed at estimating the effects of the demonstration  on insurance coverage, access to and use of care, and documenting  beneficiary understanding of and experience with premiums,  copayments, enrollment, and disenrollment, among other things. Limitations in State- Led Evaluations  Hindered Their  Usefulness and May  Not Be Fully  Addressed by CMS  Improvements State-led evaluations of demonstrations in selected states often had  significant methodological weaknesses and gaps in results that affected  their usefulness for federal decision-making. Though CMS has been  taking steps since 2014 to improve the quality of these evaluations, the  agency has not established written procedures to help implement some of  these improvements. State-Led Evaluations in  Selected States Often Had  Significant Limitations That  Affected Their Usefulness  in Informing Federal  Decision-Making The state-led evaluations we reviewed in our selected states often had  methodological limitations that affected what could be concluded about  the demonstration’s effects. CMS hired a contractor to review state  evaluation designs and reports, and that contractor identified a number of  methodological concerns with the evaluations in our selected states. For  example, CMS’s contractor raised concerns about the comparison  groups, or lack thereof, used to isolate and measure the effects of the  demonstrations in the Arkansas, California, Indiana, and Maryland  evaluations. The contractor also raised concerns with the sufficiency of  sample sizes and survey response rates for beneficiary surveys in  Indiana. These surveys were key methods for assessing the effect of  demonstrations on access, beneficiary understanding, and perceptions on  affordability. Finally, the contractor raised concerns with the analysis of  the effects of the demonstration on cost in Arkansas, California, and  Maryland. Officials in several states told us that some of the  methodological limitations in their evaluations were difficult to control. For  example, officials in two states told us that isolating the effects of the  demonstration was difficult given other changes happening in the state’s  health care system at the same time. Some state officials also noted that  state resources, including both funding and staff capacity, present  challenges in completing robust evaluations. program, with approved funding up to about $690 million. Under the  demonstration STCs, the state was required to evaluate whether the  seven hospitals participating in the DSRIP were able to show  improvements on certain outcome measures related to improving  quality of care, improving population health and access to care, and  reducing the per capita costs of health care. However, the evaluation  report, submitted by the state 5 years after approval of the DSRIP  program, provided only descriptive or summary information about the  number and types of projects implemented by the hospitals receiving  payments and did not provide any data to measure or conclusions on  the effects of those payments. Arkansas: Under its demonstration, the state was testing the effects  of using Medicaid funds to provide premium assistance for the more  than 200,000 beneficiaries newly eligible under PPACA to purchase  private insurance offered through the state’s health insurance  exchange. The state’s evaluation was designed to assess whether  beneficiaries would have equal or better access to care and equal or  better outcomes than they would have had in the Medicaid fee-for- service system. The evaluation was also aimed at examining  continuity of coverage for beneficiaries, as the expansion population  was anticipated to have frequent income fluctuations leading to  changes in eligibility and gaps in coverage. However, evaluation  results submitted over two and a half years into the demonstration— the only results submitted for the state’s first cycle—were limited to  data only from the first year of the demonstration and did not provide  data on continuity of coverage. Achieving continuity of coverage was  part of the state’s rationale for using an alternative approach to  Medicaid expansion. Arizona: Among other things, Arizona’s demonstration includes  MLTSS, including for the particularly complex populations of adults  who have intellectual and developmental disabilities and for children  with disabilities. As part of its evaluation, the state was assessing  whether the quality of and access to care, as well as quality of life,  would improve during the demonstration period for long-term care  beneficiaries enrolled in MLTSS. However, evaluation results  submitted in October 2016—the only results submitted for the state’s  most recently completed demonstration cycle—lacked data on key  measures of access, such as hospital readmission rates, and on  quality of life, such as beneficiaries’ satisfaction with their health plan,  provider, and case manager. A key contributor to the gaps in the information included in the state-led  evaluations we reviewed was that CMS historically had not required the  states to submit final, comprehensive evaluation results at the end of  each demonstration cycle. As a result, for our selected states, including  those discussed above, CMS had received only interim evaluation reports  that were generally based on more limited data from the early years of the  demonstration cycle and did not include all of the analyses planned.  Though CMS had required final evaluation reports in the demonstration  STCs, the due dates for those reports were tied to the expiration of the  demonstrations or, in one case, CMS did not enforce the specified due  date. Under such conditions, due dates for final evaluation reports were  effectively pushed out when the demonstrations were renewed.  Evaluation due dates could be pushed out for multiple cycles. CMS  officials acknowledged that the lack of data in the interim evaluation  reports from the more mature years of the demonstration affected the  conclusions that could be drawn from them. We found that due dates for final evaluation reports were pushed out  upon renewal in all seven of our states that had completed a  demonstration cycle, leading to a gap in evaluation reporting of up to 6 or  7 years for several states. In Maryland, for example, CMS approved the  demonstration to run from 2013 to 2016 with a final evaluation report due  120 days after the expiration of the demonstration. In 2016, CMS  extended the demonstration, pushing the deadline for the final evaluation  report to 18 months following the end of the new cycle, or June 2023. At  that time, it will be 7 years since the interim evaluation report was  submitted. See figure 2. The limitations in state-led evaluations—including methodological  weaknesses and gaps in results—have, in part, hindered CMS’s use of  them to inform its policy decisions. CMS officials told us that, historically,  state-led evaluations have generally provided descriptive information but  lacked evidence on outcomes and impacts. As a result, officials noted  that they consider the data reported in the evaluations but, generally,  state-led evaluations have not been particularly informative to their policy  decisions. CMS officials told us that there have been cases where data,  but not the conclusions, from state-led evaluations have informed their  thinking on certain policy changes. For example, CMS officials said that  data reported in early evaluations of DSRIP programs helped them in  considering whether and how the agency should modify the basic policy  structure of these programs. State officials had mixed perspectives on  whether state-led evaluations influenced CMS decision-making around  renewing their demonstrations. Officials in one state told us that while  CMS reviewed their interim evaluation results, the results did not appear  to influence the negotiations around the demonstration renewal. In  contrast, officials from another state told us that discussion of interim  evaluation results and limitations was a significant part of negotiations in  2016 regarding whether CMS would be willing to reauthorize funding for  certain programs, including a new DSRIP investment and broader  delivery system reforms the state was trying to implement. Officials in  several states told us that there was value to state-led evaluations and in  the federal-state partnership in designing the evaluations. CMS Is Taking Steps to  Improve the Quality of  State-Led Evaluations, but  Lacks Written Procedures  to Ensure That All  Evaluations Will Be  Subject to New  Requirements CMS has implemented several procedures since 2014 aimed at  improving the quality of state-led evaluations. CMS officials told us that  these changes were part of CMS placing increased focus on monitoring  and evaluation, which also resulted in CMS establishing a new office in  2015 that is responsible for these activities. One of the key changes CMS  began implementing in 2014 was to set more explicit requirements for  evaluations in the STCs, including requirements to improve the evaluation  methodologies. According to CMS officials, the agency realized that one  reason why state-led evaluations had generally lacked rigor and been of  limited usefulness was that CMS had not been setting clear expectations  for evaluations in the STCs. The officials said that CMS began  strengthening evaluation requirements starting in 2014 with  demonstrations implementing approaches in CMS’s high priority policy  areas. In our review of the STCs for current demonstration cycles in our seven  selected states that had completed a demonstration cycle, all of which  were approved in 2014 or later, we found evidence of CMS’s efforts.  Specifically, we found an increased focus on the use of independent  evaluators and more explicit expectations for rigor in the design and  conduct of evaluations: Consistent requirements for independent evaluators. The STCs  for the most recently approved cycle of demonstrations in all seven  states required the state to use an independent evaluator to conduct  the evaluation. In some cases, the STCs also required that the  evaluation design discuss the process to acquire the independent  evaluator, including describing the contractor’s qualifications and how  the state will assure no conflict of interest. These requirements were  new in most states. More explicit expectations for rigor. In four of the seven states we  reviewed, the STCs for the most recently approved cycle of states’  demonstrations included new, explicit language requiring state  evaluations to meet the prevailing standards of scientific and  academic rigor. These included standards for the evaluation design  and conduct as well as the interpretation and reporting of findings.  Some states’ STCs further specified the characteristics of rigor that  CMS expected, including using the best available data, discussing the  generalizability of results, and using controls and adjustments for and  reporting the limitations of data and their effects on results. According  to CMS, in the past, states have not always discussed methodological  limitations in their evaluation reports. In addition to strengthening evaluation requirements, CMS has also taken  steps since 2014 to enhance its oversight during the design and early  stages of state-led evaluations, and, according to officials, some of these  steps are likely to improve the usefulness of evaluations. Specifically,  CMS has provided technical assistance to help states design their  evaluations, sometimes leveraging expertise from other parts of HHS,  including the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and  Evaluation and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation as well as  outside contractors. For example, officials stated that the agency assists  states in developing relevant and standardized measures and provides  assistance to help address states’ data limitations. Officials said this has  resulted in more robust evaluation designs with increased potential to  isolate outcomes and impacts. CMS has also used contractors to help in its review of state evaluation  designs, including sampling designs, and evaluation reports. Since 2014,  one contractor has provided over 30 assessments of evaluation designs  and findings in at least 11 states. According to officials, this has increased  CMS’s capacity to identify methodological weaknesses and negotiate  changes with states to improve the usefulness of evaluations. For  example, CMS’s contractor reviewed four draft survey instruments that  Indiana planned to use in its evaluation, providing comments on the  sampling frames and the structure and organization of survey questions.  In response to the contractor’s feedback, Indiana made changes to the  surveys to gather more reliable information and improve their readability. Finally, CMS has begun making changes to how it sets due dates for final  evaluation reports. CMS officials told us that in spring 2017, CMS began  requiring states to submit a comprehensive evaluation report for  demonstrations in its high priority policy areas for evaluation at the end of  each demonstration cycle, rather than after the expiration of the  demonstration. CMS’s recent demonstration renewals in Florida and  Missouri—approved in August and September of 2017, respectively— required a final, summative evaluation report at the end of the  demonstration cycle, consistent with the policy. In October 2017, CMS  officials stated that the agency was expanding this policy and was now  planning to require final reports at the end of each cycle for all  demonstrations, as they are approved or renewed. However, CMS had  not established written procedures for implementing this new policy. It is too soon to assess the effectiveness of CMS’s recent efforts to  strengthen state-led evaluations. CMS has been implementing the  strategies on a rolling basis as states apply for demonstration renewals  and new demonstrations. If implemented and enforced consistently,  CMS’s efforts to improve the quality of state-led evaluations have the  potential to result in more conclusive evaluations. Further, CMS’s efforts  to improve the quality of state-led evaluations and its plan to require final  reports after each demonstration cycle are consistent with evaluation  guidance from the American Evaluation Association that recommends  that federal agencies conduct evaluations of public programs and policies  throughout the programs’ life cycles, not just at their end, and that  agencies use evaluations to improve programs and assess their  effectiveness. Federal internal control standards also state that  management should implement control activities through policies.  However, CMS does not have written procedures for implementing its  planned policy, for example, for ensuring that the requirement is included  in the STCs for all demonstrations, despite unique negotiations with each  state, and that those requirements are consistently enforced. As a result,  some state-led evaluations could continue to produce only more limited,  interim findings that leave critical questions about the effects of the these  demonstrations on beneficiaries and costs unanswered. CMS oversight of state-led evaluations may see further changes, as CMS  officials told us that their oversight procedures are still evolving. For  example, CMS officials told us that as of October 2017 the agency plans  to begin to make distinctions in the level of evaluation required across  demonstrations. They said that they are considering, for example,  whether longstanding and largely unchanged components of a  demonstration, and approaches previously tested by a number of other  states without concern, require the same level of evaluation as testing a  new approach to Medicaid expansion. Officials said that they plan to  include language in demonstration STCs, as the agency did in the recent  renewals for Florida and Missouri, instructing the state to consider those  factors as the state designs its evaluation. Specifically, in the evaluation  design submitted for CMS approval, the state should include in the discussion of limitations whether the demonstration is long-standing,  noncomplex, has previously been rigorously evaluated and found to be  successful, or is also considered to be successful without issues or  concerns. CMS officials said that the expected level of rigor for the  evaluation could be balanced against such factors. The implications of limiting evaluation requirements for certain types of  demonstration approaches would depend on CMS’s definitions of what is,  for example, noncomplex or has previously been rigorously evaluated. As  of October 2017, CMS had not established specific criteria for  determining when a demonstration component would require less  rigorous evaluation. Agency officials told us they were planning to  develop such criteria after concluding a pilot of alternative criteria and  expectations in certain demonstrations related to providing services for  family planning and former foster care children. They said that when  these pilots have concluded they will evaluate the results. It is unclear  how these narrowly scoped demonstrations—scoped for a particular type  of service or population—can be used to inform criteria for  comprehensive demonstrations that can affect a state’s entire Medicaid  population and all services. Further, though CMS has begun indicating to  states, including those with comprehensive demonstrations, that the  agency may allow less rigorous evaluations for certain types of  demonstration approaches, CMS has not established timeframes for  issuing the criteria defining those conditions. Federal standards for internal control stress that management should  implement control activities through policy and should internally and  externally communicate necessary information to achieve the agency’s  objectives. If CMS does not establish clear criteria for components of  demonstrations that require limited evaluation, characteristics such as  “long-standing” or “noncomplex” could be broadly interpreted. This could  result in demonstrations that receive significant amounts of federal funds  and affect many beneficiaries not being thoroughly evaluated. Written  criteria could also reduce the potential for inconsistencies in the level of  evaluation required across demonstrations. Ongoing Federal  Evaluations Led by  CMS Have Been  Limited by Data  Challenges and It Is  Uncertain When  Results Will Be  Available Data and other challenges have significantly limited the scope and  progress of CMS’s large, multi-state evaluation and the agency’s  evaluation of Indiana’s demonstration. Further, CMS has not released  available evaluation results from the multi-state evaluation nor set  timeframes for making these and future federal evaluation findings public. Data Challenges Have  Limited the Scope and  Progress of Federal  Evaluations CMS encountered numerous data challenges in its multi-state evaluation  that significantly reduced the scope of the analyses planned. These data  challenges included limitations in the quality of CMS data and delays  obtaining data directly from states. These limitations caused CMS to  narrow the evaluation’s scope, often by reducing the number of state  demonstrations evaluated or limiting what was being examined. All four  demonstration types targeted in the multi-state evaluation—which reflect  CMS’s high priority policy areas—were affected by these challenges. In  the most extreme case, data limitations reduced the scope of the MLTSS  evaluation to two states out of the more than 20 states operating such  programs. As a result, the evaluation findings will not be generalizable to  all MLTSS programs. (See table 2.) The data challenges were in addition  to other challenges that affected the evaluation. For example, there were  difficulties in trying to isolate demonstration effects in the context of  rapidly changing health systems, or recent demonstrations had not been  in operation long enough to allow CMS to appropriately assess longer- term effects. Many of the data challenges CMS encountered in the multi-state  evaluation reflect long-standing concerns with the lack of accurate,  complete, and timely Medicaid data. Specifically, we and others have  found that data states are required to submit to CMS have, at times, been  incomplete or have not been reported at all, particularly managed care  encounter data. Complicating the availability of these data is CMS’s  ongoing transition to a new data system, the Transformed Medicaid  Statistical Information System (T-MSIS), which is CMS’s primary effort to  improve Medicaid expenditure and utilization data. States’ transitions to  T-MSIS, however, have introduced substantial delays in state data  submissions. For example, by 2015, a large number of states had  stopped submitting data through the legacy information system until they  established T-MSIS submissions, which meant CMS had to obtain data  directly from individual states for the multi-state evaluation. New data  challenges have also emerged as states under demonstrations have  enrolled newly eligible beneficiaries in health insurance exchange  coverage. Lack of accessible data on beneficiaries enrolled in plans  offered through the exchange resulted in the delays in obtaining data for  Arkansas for the multi-state evaluation. In the past, we have made  recommendations to CMS to take action to improve the data available for  Medicaid program oversight, including to T-MSIS. As with the multi-state evaluation, data challenges, particularly obtaining  needed data from the state, also proved to be a significant hurdle in  CMS’s evaluation of Indiana’s demonstration. CMS initiated its federal  evaluation of Indiana’s demonstration in 2015 to understand how the  approaches being tested in Indiana’s demonstration affected beneficiaries  (see sidebar). However, in 2016, Indiana raised concerns about sharing  enrollee data with CMS’s evaluation contractors. Specifically, in a letter to  CMS, the state cited concerns about the controls that CMS had in place  to ensure that its contractors would protect enrollee information consistent  with state and federal privacy protections. Despite assurances by CMS,  CMS’s contractor and the state were not able to execute a data use  agreement. This effectively halted the evaluation’s progress. The data  use agreement was necessary for the contractor to access state  enrollment data that drove a number of planned evaluation activities,  including a key beneficiary survey. In October 2017, CMS officials told us  that they were continuing to work with the state and anticipated that a  data use agreement would be executed and the federal evaluation of  Indiana’s demonstration would proceed. They did not have timeframes for  when the agreement would be reached. Despite the data challenges and delays, CMS’s evaluations of Medicaid  demonstrations, as planned, are likely to provide new information on the  effects of demonstrations in different states to inform policy decisions.  The multi-state evaluation, for example, is expected to provide  information on whether living in a state that collects monthly contributions  from beneficiaries affects the likelihood of beneficiaries enrolling in  Medicaid and how per-beneficiary spending differs between premium  assistance demonstration states and states that have implemented more  traditional Medicaid expansions. CMS officials emphasized that federal  evaluations allow for cross-state evaluations that can be used to validate  the findings of related studies and also to identify which findings are  generalizable to other states and populations. CMS Has Not Released  Rapid Cycle Reports and  It Is Uncertain When Final  Evaluation Results Will Be  Available CMS has yet to make initial reports from the multi-state evaluation  publicly available, limiting the potential use of those findings by states and  other federal policymakers. As of October 2017, CMS’s contractor had  produced 15 rapid cycle reports on states’ progress in implementing  demonstrations in the high priority policy areas. These reports provide  information on states’ implementation of their demonstrations and  variations in design and provide details that can help with the  interpretation of evaluation results, inform federal policymaking, and  provide lessons learned to states and other stakeholders. The reports  also describe policy and other challenges states encountered in  implementing their programs, which could be useful to other states  interested in replicating these models. (See table 3.) However, despite having received some of these reports from its  contractor in 2015, CMS had not released these findings as of October  2017. CMS officials said that the reports were still under agency review  and acknowledged that since some of the rapid cycle reports were almost  2 years old, CMS’s contractor was reviewing and updating the information  in them. CMS officials noted that the rapid cycle reports had provided  useful information and had influenced ongoing work with states designing  related demonstrations. For example, according to officials, findings from  the rapid cycle reports played a part in how the agency structured the  latest DSRIP demonstrations. They also said that rapid cycle reports on  beneficiary engagement have shed light on the effectiveness of different  beneficiary education strategies, such as what approaches are more  successful in capturing beneficiaries’ attention and what strategies are  easiest for states to implement. In October 2017, CMS officials stated that  they had recently decided to make the rapid cycle reports public, although  the agency’s clearance process for the reports was still being decided  and the officials did not have timeframes for the reports’ release. It is also uncertain when CMS will make interim and final evaluation  reports from the multi-state evaluation public. By September 2017, CMS’s  contractor for the multi-state evaluation produced three interim evaluation  reports covering the four demonstration types. CMS officials regard  these as draft interim evaluation reports, and, as of October 2017, said  they were under agency review and would not be publicly released. CMS  expects the contractor to submit final interim evaluation reports, which are  anticipated to include some additional information beyond the draft  reports, by September 2018, about 1 year later than when the final interim  evaluation reports were originally due. CMS officials said that the  agency planned to release the final interim evaluation reports, although  there was no specific timetable for this. Timeframes for the completion  and release of final evaluation results are even more uncertain, both  because of the delays in the evaluation progress and because CMS has  no standard policy for timeframes for releasing evaluation results. It is also uncertain when evaluation results will be available and made  public for CMS’s evaluations of the Indiana and Montana demonstrations.  Two years after the approval of the contract for the Indiana evaluation,  CMS’s contractor has produced an evaluation design but no evaluation  findings. CMS had not posted the evaluation design on its website until  November 2017, according to officials, about 1 year after it was originally  submitted. As discussed above, the lack of findings is due to the  contractor and state not having negotiated a data use agreement. To the  extent that Indiana’s evaluation moves forward and evaluation reports are  produced, CMS officials said the agency plans to release the final  evaluation report but did not indicate whether interim findings, available a  year earlier, would be released. With regard to the Montana evaluation,  CMS expects to receive the interim evaluation report by September 2018  and the final evaluation report by September 2019. How soon these  findings would be publicly available, however, is difficult to estimate, as  CMS officials told us the agency must review these before making them  publically available and does not have timeframes for this review. The lack of a standard policy for the public release of findings from  federal evaluations of Medicaid demonstrations is inconsistent with  recommendations of the American Evaluation Association. The  Association recommends that evaluation findings related to public  accountability be disseminated to the public, and that evaluation results  be made available in a timely manner and be easily accessible through  the internet. For state-led evaluations, CMS must post on its website, or  provide a link to the state’s website, all evaluation materials, including  research and data collection, for the purposes of sharing findings with the  public within 30 days of receiving the materials. CMS has not established  a comparable policy for the release of findings from federal evaluations of  demonstrations. CMS officials stated that federal evaluations provide a  unique cross-state perspective that states typically do not have the  capacity to provide in their own state-led evaluations; however, if these  reports are not made public in a timely fashion, opportunities may be  missed to inform federal and state policymakers and other stakeholders  on the effects of Medicaid demonstrations. Conclusions Section 1115 demonstrations have long been an important tool for  providing states with the flexibility to test new approaches to providing  and financing Medicaid coverage. Given the potential effects on millions  of beneficiaries and significant federal investment in these  demonstrations—over $100 billion in 2015—it is critical that they be  evaluated. Evaluating Medicaid demonstrations is complex, both within a  single state and across states. These programs are dynamic, and there  are many factors affecting outcomes, making it challenging to isolate the  effects of policy changes implemented under a demonstration. Further,  persistent challenges with Medicaid data that we have highlighted over  the years add to the complexity of evaluating demonstrations. Despite  these challenges, targeted and well-designed evaluations offer the  potential to identify policies that improve outcomes for beneficiaries and  reduce costs to Medicaid. With the growing complexity of Medicaid  programs and limited resources, that information could prove key in  helping to sustain the program. CMS’s approach to overseeing state-led evaluations in the past has  resulted in limited information about the effects of demonstrations, leaving  gaps in evidence about policies that might improve state Medicaid  programs. CMS’s efforts since 2014 to improve the usefulness of  evaluations in informing state and federal Medicaid policy decisions have  promise. If CMS consistently sets and enforces clear expectations and  provides support for rigorous and timely state-led evaluations for all  demonstrations as planned, those evaluations could yield more useful  information within the next several years. However, CMS has not  established written procedures for requiring final, comprehensive  evaluation reports at the end of each cycle for all demonstrations, a key  step in improving the usefulness of state-led evaluations. Further, CMS is  planning to allow less rigorous evaluations for some demonstrations but  has not yet established specific criteria for doing so. Federal evaluations led by CMS also show promise. The evaluations  currently underway—despite challenges that caused delays and reduced  scope—are likely to provide a cross-state look at the effects of policies  that are of great interest to CMS, Congress, and other states. However,  CMS has not yet made potentially useful rapid cycle reports public and  has no established policy for making future evaluation reports public. By  not making the results of the federal evaluations public in a timely  manner, CMS is missing an opportunity to inform important policy  discussions happening at the state and federal levels. Recommendations for  Executive Action We are making the following three recommendations to CMS:  The Administrator of CMS should establish written procedures for  implementing the agency’s policy that requires all states to submit a  final evaluation report after the end of each demonstration cycle,  regardless of renewal status. (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of CMS should issue written criteria for when CMS  will allow limited evaluation of a demonstration or a portion of a  demonstration, including defining conditions, such as what it means  for a demonstration to be longstanding or noncomplex, as applicable.  (Recommendation 2) The Administrator of CMS should establish and implement a policy for  publicly releasing findings from federal evaluations of demonstrations,  including findings from rapid cycle, interim, and final reports; and this  policy should include standards for timely release. (Recommendation  3) Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS  concurred with all three recommendations. Regarding our first  recommendation that CMS establish written procedures for implementing  its policy requiring states to submit final evaluation reports after the end of  each demonstration cycle, HHS said that it is in the process of developing  such written procedures. HHS said that it is currently making this a  requirement through the STCs for each demonstration as demonstrations  are approved or renewed. Regarding our second recommendation that  CMS issue written criteria for when the agency will allow states to limit  evaluations of their demonstrations, HHS said it is in the process of  testing such criteria, and that once it has experience with the criteria, it  will develop written guidance. Regarding our third recommendation that  CMS establish and implement a policy for publicly releasing findings from  federal evaluations of demonstrations, HHS said that CMS is in the  process of establishing such a policy. HHS added that CMS plans to have  all finalized federal rapid cycle reports and final interim evaluation reports  publicly available in the near future. HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. HHS’s comments are reproduced in appendix II. 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 of this report to the  Secretary of Health and Human Services, appropriate congressional  committees, and other interested parties. The report will also be available  at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members 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 III. Appendix I: Characteristics of Selected  States’ 1115 Demonstrations The Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations (referred to as  demonstrations) in our eight selected states varied in terms of the number  of years the demonstrations had been in effect and cost, among other  things. For example, three of the more mature demonstrations—those in  Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York—had been in place for two  decades. Demonstrations in Arkansas and Kansas represented more  recent approvals, both approved in 2013. (See table 4.) With regard to  cost, all of the selected states were among the top 15 states in terms of  amount of spending under demonstrations. Together, spending under  demonstrations in our selected states accounted for about 47 percent of  all spending under demonstrations in fiscal year 2015. Appendix II: Comments from the Department  of Health and Human Services Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Susan Barnidge (Assistant  Director), Linda McIver (Analyst-in-Charge), John Lalomio, Hannah  Locke, and Corissa Kiyan-Fukumoto made key contributions to this  report. Also contributing were Laurie Pachter and Emily Wilson.
Demonstrations—which represented roughly a third of the more than $300 billion in federal Medicaid spending in 2015—are a powerful tool to test new approaches to providing coverage and delivering Medicaid services that could reduce costs and improve beneficiaries' outcomes. Evaluations are essential to determining whether demonstrations are having their intended effects. States are required to evaluate their demonstrations and CMS can initiate its own federal evaluations of demonstrations. GAO was asked to examine evaluations of demonstrations, including how the results have been used to inform Medicaid policy. This report examines (1) state-led evaluations and (2) federal evaluations. GAO reviewed evaluation documentation for eight states with high demonstration expenditures that varied in the number of years their demonstrations had been in effect and by geography. GAO also reviewed documentation for the ongoing federal evaluations and interviewed state and federal Medicaid officials. GAO assessed evaluation practices against federal standards for internal control and leading evaluation guidelines. Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) may approve Medicaid demonstrations to allow states to test new approaches to providing coverage and for delivering services that can transform large portions of states' programs. However, GAO found that selected states' evaluations of these demonstrations often had significant limitations that affected their usefulness in informing policy decisions. The limitations included gaps in reported evaluation results for important parts of the demonstrations. (See table.) These gaps resulted, in part, from HHS's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requiring final, comprehensive evaluation reports after the expiration of the demonstrations rather than at the end of each 3- to 5-year demonstration cycle. CMS has taken a number of steps since 2014 to improve the quality of state-led evaluations, and in October 2017, officials stated that the agency planned to require final reports at the end of each demonstration cycle for all demonstrations. However, the agency has not established written procedures for implementing such requirements, which could allow for gaps to continue. CMS also plans to allow states to conduct less rigorous evaluations for certain types of demonstrations but has not established criteria defining under what conditions limited evaluations would be allowed. Federal evaluations led by CMS have also been limited due to data challenges that have affected the progress and scope of the work. For example, delays obtaining data directly from states, among other things, led CMS to considerably reduce the scope of a large, multi-state evaluation, which was initiated in 2014 to examine the impact of state demonstrations in four policy areas deemed to be federal priorities. Though CMS has made progress in obtaining needed data, it is uncertain when results from the multi-state and other federal evaluations will be available to policymakers because CMS has no policy for making results public. By not making these results public in a timely manner, CMS is missing an opportunity to inform important federal and state policy discussions.