CMS intends for the T-MSIS initiative to provide a national data repository that would support federal and state program management, financial management, and program integrity activities, among other functions. T- MSIS is also intended to benefit states by reducing the number of reports CMS requires them to submit, and by improving program efficiency by allowing states to compare their data with other states’ data in the national repository or with information in other CMS repositories, including Medicare data. For example, CMS intends to use T-MSIS data for reports that states are currently required to submit, such as Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Program reports. T-MSIS is designed to capture significantly more data from states than is the case with MSIS, thereby collecting data not previously reported that should provide CMS and states with information to enhance their oversight efforts. T-MSIS includes the five data files that were collected through MSIS: an eligibility file and four claims files (inpatient, long-term care, pharmacy, and other). The scope of data to be collected from these five previously defined MSIS files has expanded to include more detailed information on enrollees, such as their citizenship, immigration, and disability status; and expanded diagnosis and procedure codes associated with their treatments. Additionally, T-MSIS requires states to report three new data files on (1) providers, (2) third-party liability, and (3) managed care organizations (MCO). The provider file includes a unique identifier for each provider, as well as data fields to show provider specialty and practice locations. Each of these identifiers can assist CMS and state oversight by providing information on provider referrals, Medicaid payments to specific providers, and identifying ineligible providers. The third-party liability file includes data on whether a beneficiary has any health insurance in addition to Medicaid, or other potential sources of funds that could reduce Medicaid’s expenditures. Medicaid is generally the payer of last resort, meaning if Medicaid enrollees have another source of health care coverage, that source should pay, to the extent of its liability, before Medicaid does. Information on beneficiaries’ other sources of coverage could help ensure that Medicaid pays only those expenditures for which it is liable. The managed care file includes more detailed information on MCOs, such as type and name of managed care plans, covered eligibility groups, service areas, and reimbursement arrangements. In addition to identifying which MCOs are reporting encounter data as required, this file could help CMS’s oversight by allowing the agency to identify excess plan profits and volatility of expenditures for some beneficiary groups across states. In total, T-MSIS includes approximately 1,400 data elements, according to CMS. Many of these elements, however, have content that is used in more than one of the eight T-MSIS files. For example, the element “DATE OF BIRTH” is required in five T-MSIS files—Eligibility, Claim Inpatient, Claim Long-term Care, Claim Prescription, and Claim Other. CMS requires states to report all T-MSIS elements that are applicable to their programs, and has worked closely with states to facilitate their efforts to report these data. For example, before CMS approves a state for reporting T-MSIS data, states must complete a number of activities, including developing detailed work plans and completing a series of data testing phases. For a state to meet CMS’s requirements for submitting T-MSIS data, it must report data for all eight files, but not necessarily all elements within each file. In addition, T-MSIS includes aspects aimed at improving the timeliness and accuracy of data submitted by states. For example, CMS requires states to report T-MSIS data monthly, rather than quarterly, as was the case with MSIS. Regarding data accuracy, T-MSIS includes approximately 2,800 automated quality checks that provide states with feedback on data format and consistency, according to CMS; this is in contrast to MSIS, which had relatively few automated checks. Other quality checks are to ensure logical relationships across T-MSIS files. Both we and the HHS-OIG have previously recommended that CMS take steps to address the quality of T-MSIS data. In our January 2017 report, we recommended that CMS take immediate steps to assess and improve T-MSIS data. As part of that effort, we noted that CMS could refine their T-MSIS data priority areas to identify those that are critical for reducing improper payments and expedite efforts to assess and ensure their quality. CMS agreed with our recommendation, but as of September 2017, the agency had not implemented it. More recently, the HHS-OIG reported that CMS and states continue to have concerns regarding the completeness and reliability of T-MSIS data, echoing concerns raised in its 2013 review of CMS’s T-MSIS pilot program. The HHS-OIG noted it was concerned that CMS and states would delay further efforts rather than assign the resources needed to address the outstanding challenges, and reaffirmed its 2013 recommendation that CMS establish a deadline for when T-MSIS data will be available for program analysis and other management functions. Despite challenges converting their data to the T-MSIS format, most states were reporting T-MSIS data as of November 2017, representing significant progress over the past year. With most states reporting, CMS has shifted its efforts to working with states to improve the quality of T- MSIS data. As of November 2017, 49 states have begun reporting T-MSIS data, a significant increase from the 18 states that had started reporting these data in October 2016. These reporting states represent over 97 percent of the 2017 Medicaid population nationwide. CMS officials told us that they expect all states to report T-MSIS data by 2018. (See fig. 1.) As of November 2017, all eight of our selected states were reporting T- MSIS data, with seven of them having begun in September 2016 or later. Selected states’ estimated spending a collective $14.16 million on their efforts to report T-MSIS data from October 2011 through June 2017, ranging from approximately $850,000 in Virginia to $4.42 million in Minnesota. (See table 1.) The age and scope of states’ existing Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) were among the factors that affected certain states’ spending and timing on this effort. Mapping the data—the process by which states convert their data to the T-MSIS format on an element-by-element basis—was the primary challenge our eight selected states identified in reporting T-MSIS data. In some cases, before converting their data to the T-MSIS format, states had to obtain data they had not previously collected from other state entities, MCOs, or providers. For example, Minnesota had to begin collecting information on denied claims from MCOs, and Utah had to collect third-party liability information from other state agencies. In addition, while some state data elements could be converted to the T- MSIS format fairly easily, because the relationships between the two were clear, the conversion of other data elements was more complicated. For example, the T-MSIS data element for male and female is “M” and “F,” respectively. Accordingly, in states that identified gender by a numeric value, “1” for male and “2” for female, the conversion to T-MSIS for this element was a fairly straightforward one-to-one relationship. However, for other data elements, the conversion process was more complex, requiring states to expand or collapse their data to match the T-MSIS format. (See fig. 2.) Selected states shared examples of steps they took to convert state data to the T-MSIS format. Louisiana officials noted that they had to map the state’s single durable medical equipment (DME) element to multiple specific T- MSIS DME elements, such as DME pharmacy or DME orthotics. Virginia officials said they had to combine three state ambulance service provider elements into a single T-MSIS element. In addition, individuals who had experience with other states’ T-MSIS reporting efforts also noted that states may not have always collapsed categories in the same way. For example, one state collapsed its 109 provider categories to match T-MSIS’s 57 provider categories, according to an individual who worked with the state on this effort. This individual noted that there were 32 state provider elements that did not directly match a specific T-MSIS element, so the state grouped them all into the “other” T-MSIS element. Changes in CMS’s data reporting requirements further complicated some states’ efforts to convert their data to the T-MSIS format, according to officials from our selected states. CMS updated the T-MSIS data dictionary—the document that defines the required T-MSIS elements and their reporting formats—twice in 2013 and again in November 2015. According to CMS officials, they updated the data dictionary to clarify and remove inconsistencies from guidance in response to feedback from states. Some of the selected states reported that the changes included in this update required considerable rework, and in some cases, delayed their T-MSIS reporting. For example, Washington officials noted that the 2015 update became available at the point it was completing a T-MSIS testing phase. Due to the rework required to comply with the new data specifications, the state’s efforts to report T-MSIS data were delayed by nearly one year. Similarly, Minnesota officials also cited rework associated with changes to the 2015 data dictionary, which contributed to delays in their efforts to report T-MSIS data. Over the past six years, CMS has relied on a variety of mechanisms to support states’ efforts to report T-MSIS data. CMS assigned technical assistants to help states understand the T- MSIS requirements, prioritize steps to report T-MSIS data, and serve as a resource on technical issues. The majority of selected states had positive comments about the technical assistance they received. For example, Pennsylvania officials said its technical assistant regularly met with them, answered any questions they had, and facilitated their efforts to complete T-MSIS testing. CMS began hosting national webinars covering a range of topics, including clarification on specific T-MSIS elements that CMS identified as challenging or subject to error, and updates on the nationwide implementation. The webinars also provided an opportunity for states to ask CMS questions about T-MSIS requirements. CMS established web-based avenues through which the agency could compile and disseminate information, as well as elicit questions from states and contractors. For example, CMS provided an electronic option for states to submit questions regarding policy and technical issues. CMS took additional steps to help states, including creating a SharePoint web site through which states are notified about changes in guidance. With nearly all states having begun reporting T-MSIS data, CMS has shifted its efforts to improving the quality of the T-MSIS data reported, and these efforts are still evolving. For example, to provide states with immediate feedback on their reported T-MSIS data, CMS created an online “operational dashboard” for each state, which provides specific information on errors in its reported data. Using information on the operational dashboard, states can identify the frequency and cause of certain errors, which facilitates their efforts to resolve them more expeditiously and to improve future submissions. All six of the selected states reporting T-MSIS data had positive comments about the value of the operational dashboard, with some of them noting that the feedback on errors was a significant improvement from their experience with MSIS, where feedback had a considerable time-lag. More recently, according to agency officials, CMS has initiated a pilot study with four states to identify anomalies in their reported data that merit further attention, obtain feedback on automated quality measures, and determine the best approach for ongoing quality review. While work on the pilot is ongoing, CMS officials anticipate using what they learned to expand the agency’s quality review to include all states. In addition, CMS has turned to external stakeholders to evaluate the quality of T-MSIS data. Specifically, CMS has shared T-MSIS data with a Technical Expert Panel it formed to obtain feedback on inconsistencies and other quality concerns. According to CMS officials, the Technical Expert Panel focused on a preliminary set of T-MSIS data from a limited number of states. The agency officials noted that Technical Expert Panel members include individuals from HHS’s Office of the Actuary, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, among others. Panel participants analyzed the T- MSIS data from 11 states on the specific topics in which they have expertise. According to CMS officials, the panel is to provide its results to the agency in a summary report. Ongoing data concerns raise questions about how soon—and to what extent—T-MSIS data will be sufficient to achieve the goals of improving CMS’s and states’ ability to use Medicaid data for oversight. For example, none of the six selected states that were reporting T-MSIS data as of August 2017 were reporting complete data at that time. In reviewing selected states’ documentation of unreported data elements, we determined that the number of unreported data elements ranged from about 80 elements to 260 elements. Although T-MSIS includes about 1,400 data elements, the number of data elements relevant to each state varies, in part, because certain elements may not be applicable to all states and others may be populated at the state’s discretion. In addition, the content of some data elements are present in more than one of the eight T-MSIS files. As a result, the number of unreported elements may overstate the extent of state efforts needed to report complete T-MSIS data. Our selected states provided a range of reasons for not reporting T-MSIS data elements, including that certain elements were contingent on federal or state actions. In other cases, state officials indicated that data elements were too costly to report, so they would not be reporting them. We identified further examples of where certain data elements were not applicable to states’ Medicaid programs, and therefore were not required. (See table 2.) Although CMS requires states to report all T-MSIS data elements applicable to their program, CMS officials said they did not specify a reporting deadline for states, and selected states’ documentation to CMS did not always include the reasons they did not report certain elements, or whether or when they planned to report them. Due to the lack of clarity and completeness in selected states’ documentation, we were not able to identify the reasons for all unreported data elements. However, among our selected states, Virginia’s documentation more clearly specified most—but not all—of the reasons it was not reporting 260 T-MSIS elements. Virginia identified 167 elements that its MMIS did not capture, and noted that once the state’s new Medicaid information system is fully implemented in 2019, the state will be able to report them. Virginia identified 16 elements as pending other state or related actions. Virginia identified 18 elements as pending the implementation of HHS efforts. Virginia identified 53 elements as not applicable to aspects of its Medicaid program. Without complete information from all states on unreported data elements and their plans to report them, it is unclear when—and to what extent—T- MSIS data will be available to use for oversight, which is inconsistent with federal internal control standards for using quality information to achieve objectives. In some cases, data elements important for program oversight were not reported by two or more of the six selected states reporting T-MSIS data, limiting T-MSIS’s usefulness for oversight in these areas. (See table 3.) Another factor affecting the ability of CMS and states to use T-MSIS data for oversight is that not all of the 49 states submitting T-MSIS data are submitting current data. According to CMS officials, before beginning to report T-MSIS data, each state stops reporting MSIS data. At that point, there is a temporary gap in the state’s reporting until it receives CMS’s approval to begin reporting T-MSIS data. After a state gets CMS’s approval, it must first submit the T-MSIS data that correspond to the date that it stopped submitting MSIS data; the data for previous months is known as “catch up” data. Once a state reports that data, it then shifts to reporting current T-MSIS data. According to CMS, as of November 2017, 42 of the 49 states reporting T-MSIS data were reporting current data; the remaining 7 states were still reporting catch up data for previous months. Regarding the comparability of T-MSIS data across states, state officials we interviewed cited concerns that could affect their use of T-MSIS for oversight. Officials from most selected states cited the benefit that a national repository of T-MSIS data could provide by allowing them to compare their Medicaid program data—such as spending or utilization rates—to other states, which could potentially improve their oversight. However, concerns about comparability of the data make officials from most selected states hesitant to use the data for this purpose. In particular, officials from six of eight selected states, and other individuals we interviewed, are not confident that the decisions states made when converting their data to the T-MSIS format were consistent across states. An individual who worked with other states on T-MSIS reporting efforts noted that states may have made different decisions about what types of providers to include as part of the “all other” category of providers within T-MSIS. While one state he worked with included a range of provider types, such as licensed drug and alcohol counselors and non-emergency medical transportation providers, in the “all other” T-MSIS provider category, other states may have made different decisions. Some state officials and individuals working with states noted that states’ different decisions may complicate their ability to use the data for cross-state comparisons. Further, officials from some of the selected states noted that they were not familiar with the quality of other states’ T-MSIS data. CMS has begun to take steps to address the quality of the T-MSIS data; however, its efforts are still evolving. For example, in May 2017, CMS identified 12 data quality priority areas for states to focus on for improving the accuracy and consistency of T-MSIS data, including accurately categorizing beneficiaries into T-MSIS eligibility groups and ensuring consistency related to MCO reporting. CMS has worked to identify existing or develop new guidance for each of these priority areas, and to compile the guidance in a central location for states’ reference. As of August 2017, CMS officials said they compiled guidance for 11 of the 12 areas, and intended to continue work with states on these priorities. In addition, CMS has not created a mechanism to disseminate information about states’ data limitations or states’ efforts to improve and use the data, which also affects their utility for oversight. Officials from four of the eight selected states said that learning more about other states’ T-MSIS data could help allay their concerns about comparability, and two of the four states said it could also help them address their own data quality issues. Additionally, officials from all eight selected states were interested in opportunities to learn more about other states’ use of the data. CMS officials acknowledged the benefits of a mechanism to disseminate information about states’ data limitations more broadly, and to facilitate information sharing among states. CMS officials told us that they plan to launch a Learning Collaborative with states to facilitate feedback and collaboration. This effort could address a range of data-related topics, including data quality. CMS officials told us they were taking actions to put the Learning Collaborative in place, and may launch the collaborative in early 2018. The lack of an effort to facilitate information sharing is inconsistent with CMS’s goals for T-MSIS and with federal internal control standards for using and communicating quality information to achieve objectives. Absent such an effort, CMS is missing an opportunity to help states understand ways they could improve the quality of their T-MSIS data and facilitate states’ use of the data for oversight. CMS is also missing an opportunity to expedite quality improvements that could result from states conducting their own independent analyses. Although CMS has taken steps to begin using T-MSIS data, it has not yet fully articulated a plan for how and when it will use T-MSIS data for its own broader oversight efforts of state Medicaid programs. For example, according to CMS officials, the agency has begun to use T-MSIS data to generate Money Follow the Person reports, and has begun exploring additional uses of T-MSIS data to reduce states’ reporting burden. These preliminary efforts are consistent with one of CMS’s stated goals for T-MSIS, which is to reduce states’ reporting burden by relying on T- MSIS data in place of separate reports that states currently submit, and officials from six of eight selected states indicated that such an effort would reduce their reporting burden. However, as of August 2017, CMS officials acknowledged that they had yet to outline how best to use T-MSIS data for program monitoring, oversight, and management, because they were still largely focused on working with the remaining states to begin reporting T-MSIS data, analyzing the quality and usability of the T-MSIS data, and preparing the data for research purposes. CMS’s lack of a specific plan and time frames for using T-MSIS data is inconsistent with federal internal control standards related to using and communicating quality information to achieve objectives. Absent a specific plan and time frames, CMS’s ability to use these data to oversee the program, including ensuring proper payments and beneficiaries’ access to services, is limited. As part of its efforts to address longstanding concerns about the data available to oversee the Medicaid program, CMS has taken important steps toward developing a reliable national repository for Medicaid data. T-MSIS has the potential to improve CMS’s ability to identify improper payments, help ensure beneficiaries’ access to services, and improve program transparency, among other benefits. By providing more standardized data on various aspects of Medicaid—such as spending or utilization rates—states could be better positioned to compare their programs to other states, thereby improving their ability to identify program inefficiencies or opportunities for improvement. Implementing the T-MSIS initiative has been a significant undertaking. Over the past 6 years, CMS has worked closely with states and has reached a point where nearly all states are reporting T-MSIS data. While recognizing the progress that has been made, more work needs to be done before CMS or states can use these data for program oversight. It remains unclear when all states will report complete and comparable T- MSIS data, and how CMS and states will use them to improve oversight. In the interim, improper Medicaid payments continue to increase, reaching $36.7 billion in fiscal year 2017. Further delays in T-MSIS’s use limit CMS’s ability to reverse that trend in the near term, underscoring the need for CMS to take additional steps to expedite the use of the data. We are making the following two recommendations to CMS. The Administrator of CMS, in partnership with the states, should take additional steps to expedite the use of T-MSIS data for program oversight. Such steps should include, but are not limited to, efforts to obtain complete information from all states on unreported T-MSIS data elements and their plans to report applicable data elements; identify and share information across states on known T-MSIS data limitations to improve data comparability; and implement mechanisms, such as the Learning Collaborative, by which states can collaborate on an ongoing basis to improve the completeness, comparability, and utility of T-MSIS data. (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of CMS should articulate a specific plan and associated time frames for using T-MSIS data for oversight. (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to HHS for comment. In its written comments, HHS concurred with our recommendations, and noted that strong Medicaid data can help the federal government and the states move toward better health outcomes and improve program integrity, performance, and financial management. With most states now reporting T-MSIS data, HHS highlighted efforts it has taken to improve the quality of T-MSIS data. For example, HHS developed a database on data quality findings, which could be used to identify solutions for common problems across states, and has begun to develop a data quality scorecard for T- MSIS users, which aggregates data quality findings in a user-friendly tool. Regarding taking steps to expedite the use of T-MSIS data for program oversight, HHS stated that it will (1) continue to work to obtain complete T-MSIS information from all states; (2) take additional steps to share information across states on T-MSIS data limitations; and (3) implement ways for states to collaborate regarding T-MSIS. HHS also noted that it is in the process of developing a plan for using T-MSIS data for oversight. HHS emphasized that it is dependent on states—and their available staffing and resources—to address data quality and reporting issues. HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. HHS’s comments are reprinted in appendix I. As agreed with your office, 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 appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of HHS, 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 staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or yocomc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Carolyn L. Yocom, (202) 512-7114 or yocomc@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, individuals making key contributions to this report include Susan Anthony (Assistant Director), Manuel Buentello (Analyst-in-Charge), Anna Bonelli, and Robin Burke. Also contributing were Muriel Brown, Drew Long, and Jennifer Rudisill.
GAO and others have identified insufficiencies in state-reported Medicaid data that affect CMS's ability to oversee the program effectively. Recent increases in improper payments—estimated at $36.7 billion in fiscal year 2017—exacerbate concerns about program oversight. CMS officials identified the T-MSIS initiative, which began in 2011, as its main effort to improve Medicaid data, and cited aspects of T-MSIS aimed at improving the scope and quality of state-reported data. GAO reported in January 2017 that it is unclear when T-MSIS data will be available from all states; how CMS will ensure data quality; or how the data will be used to enhance oversight of Medicaid. GAO was asked to review states' experiences with T-MSIS implementation and planned uses of T-MSIS data. This report examines (1) states' experiences regarding T-MSIS implementation, and (2) challenges to CMS's and states' use of T-MSIS data for oversight. GAO reviewed federal laws, guidance, and internal control standards; reviewed documents and interviewed officials from eight states, selected based on their T-MSIS reporting status, location, program expenditures, and other factors; and interviewed CMS officials, CMS contractors, and individuals involved with other states' T-MSIS efforts. As of November 2017, 49 states had begun reporting Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) data—a significant increase from 18 states reporting these data one year earlier. All eight states GAO reviewed identified converting their data to the T-MSIS format on an element-by-element basis as the main challenge in their reporting efforts. For some data elements, states had to expand or collapse their data to match the T-MSIS format. With the continued implementation of T-MSIS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken an important step toward developing a reliable national repository for Medicaid data. However, data challenges have hindered states' and CMS's use of the T-MSIS data for oversight. None of the six selected states reporting T-MSIS data in August 2017 was reporting complete data. These states said that certain unreported elements were contingent on federal or state actions, and others were not applicable to the state's Medicaid program. States did not always specify in their documentation whether they planned to report elements in the future or when they would report complete data. Six of eight selected states expressed concerns about the comparability of T-MSIS data across states. Further, all states were interested in CMS facilitating information sharing among states. CMS has not compiled and shared information about states' data limitations, which would help states accurately compare their T-MSIS data to other states' T-MSIS data. CMS has taken steps for the initial use of T-MSIS data, but does not have a plan or associated timeframes for using these data for oversight. As a result, important CMS goals for T-MSIS, such as reducing states' reporting burden and enhancing program integrity activities, are not being fully realized. GAO recommends that CMS (1) improve T-MSIS's completeness and comparability to expedite its use, and (2) articulate a specific oversight plan. The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with GAO's recommendations.