CBO, JCT share methods for analyzing legislative proposals impacting health insurance coverage

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) revealed in a recent report how they jointly analyze proposed legislation that would impact health insurance coverage for individuals younger than age 65, detailing how they develop analytic strategies, model a proposal’s effect, and finalize their analysis (CBO Report, February 2018).

Analytic strategy development

First, the CBO and JCT put together an analytic strategy. The agencies formally develop their strategy once the proposed legislation’s specifications become available, an official request for analysis has been made, and the CBO and JCT arrange the time to commence the analysis. However, the agencies also often work informally with Congressional staff during development of the proposal. The agencies begin by reviewing the policy specifications. The CBO and JCT consider how the proposed legislation would impact existing law and how the proposed legislation is different from earlier proposal drafts. The agencies work to verify that the Congressional staff’s intent is reflected in the language and then estimate the legislative effect by, namely, identifying how the proposal could affect health insurance coverage and the federal budget.

The CBO and JCT focus on the policy changes most likely to impact health insurance coverage or cost, ranging from the straight-forward to the more complex. Another key aspect the agencies consider is timing and what additional “administrative infrastructure” is necessary to bring about the changes of the proposed legislation—and how long it would take to do so. The timing element includes estimates of how other stakeholders (state governments, insurers, employers, etc.) would respond and how long it would take for them to implement the proposed changes. To help with their estimates, the agencies rely on past cases of legislative reform programs. Further, the agencies seek input from outside experts and existing evidence while maintaining the required confidentiality of a proposal.

Proposal effect modeling

Second, the CBO and JCT undertake modelling the impact of the proposed legislation. Primarily, the agencies rely on CBO’s health insurance simulation model (HISIM), Medicaid enrollment and cost models, and JCT’s individual tax model. These models use data on health insurance coverage information for everyone younger than 65, Medicaid enrollment and expenditures, and detailed tax return information. The agencies also draw estimates based on information HISIM cannot project, namely, the behavior of states, employers, and insurers. These initial projections are incorporated as inputs into HISIM (state, employer, and individual enrollee behavior) or assessed outside HISIM (insurer behavior). CBO and JCT also use HISIM to estimate stakeholder responses to new coverage options. Medicaid enrollment and cost projections use HISIM estimates in addition to a more detailed Medicaid model and other methods. JCT usually provides estimates of proposed tax liability changes using its individual tax model.


Finally, both the CBO and JCT engage in rigorous review of their respective analysis results in order to ensure objectivity and proper analysis. Specifically, they examine results of one or more years out of the 10-year projection period to ensure that the analysis is being computed as intended and compare results against previous analyses. The agencies also inspect for programming errors or unexplained results. The CBO and JCT consider changes to the results if there were different critical inputs. The agencies prepare a formal written estimate and explanation thereof and, before releasing it to Congress and the public, agency staff carefully review the report.

Kusserow on Compliance: Ongoing auditing and monitoring of high risk areas—16 tips for compliance officers

By Steve Forman, CPA

In its various guidance documents, the OIG has repeated stressed the importance of ongoing monitoring and auditing of high-risk areas, yet there remains considerable confusion regarding the differences between the two; and who has responsibility for them. The following addresses this issue and provide tips for consideration by compliance officers in meeting the challenge of this key compliance program element.

Ongoing monitoring

Ongoing monitoring is a program manager’s responsibility, not the compliance officer’s. It entails establishing and maintaining controls and metrics to determine on a continuous basis whether operations comply with established policies, procedures, regulations or laws and whether significant risks are being adequately addressed and mitigated. This includes keeping current with changes in rules, regulations, and applicable laws; developing internal controls, policies, and procedures to comply with them; training staff on these rules; and taking active steps in monitoring or verifying compliance with these new guidelines. Ongoing monitoring should be designed to test for inconsistencies, duplication, errors, policy violations, missing approvals, incomplete data, dollar or volume limit errors, or other possible breakdowns in internal controls. Monitoring techniques may include sampling protocols that permit program managers to identify and review variations from an established baseline.

Ongoing auditing

Ongoing auditing is reviewing the ongoing monitoring process. In essence, it is a spot check. The review must be independent and objective, which means that it should be done by people external to the program area being audited. The compliance office, internal or external audits, other program managers, outside consultants, or any combination thereof can be used to conduct ongoing auditing. The objective of the audit should be to verify that program managers are properly carrying out their monitoring responsibilities and to recommend where internal control mechanisms can be improved. This includes confirming that controls are in place and functioning as they were intended or identifying weaknesses in the program that need to be addressed. In any case, the compliance officer should ensure that both the monitoring and auditing is taking place and doing what it should be doing. The compliance officer should also verify that corrective actions taken as a result of audits are timely, effective, and sustainable.  This should also be an ongoing focus of any management level compliance committee or board level compliance committee.

Tips: 16 Questions for compliance officers

  1. Has a compliance audit plan been developed to verify that ongoing monitoring and auditing are addressing compliance high-risk areas?
  2. Have program managers identified and listed all compliance high-risks areas related to their operational areas? Many such risks are found in the OIG guidance, work-plans, fraud alerts, advisory opinions, audits, and enforcement priorities. In addition it is useful to monitor Medicare contractor activities (e.g. RACs, ZPICs, etc.), industry news, PERM reports, and PEPPER data, etc.
  3. Are program managers engaged in assessing high-risk areas within their operations?
  4. Are high-risk areas ranked in terms of level of risk, probability of risk exposure, and impact or damage from a risk area?
  5. Do you also consider high impact, low probability risks?
  6. Have program managers developed and implemented monitoring plans to address all identified risk areas?
  7. Are all compliance risks areas being tested and reviewed on an ongoing basis?
  8. Is there priority given to address areas of highest risk?
  9. Have program managers calculated the potential damage for a risk failure, including the potential scale of direct and indirect financial consequences (i.e., liability, penalties, etc.), as well as whether they have established the likelihood of a risk event, taking into consideration whether the area is a current enforcement priority (e.g., improper physician arrangements)?
  10. Does ongoing auditing verify monitoring by program managers is taking place to addresses adequacy of the internal controls (e.g. policies/procedures) to reduce likelihood of that an unwanted event will occur in high risk areas?
  11. Has ongoing auditing validated that ongoing monitoring is effective in achieving the desired objectives?
  12. Have corrective action plans have been instituted for all risk area deficiencies identified by ongoing monitoring or auditing?
  13. Is there a process by which corrective action measures taken are working as intended?
  14. Are results of monitoring and auditing included as regular agenda items for management and board level compliance committees?
  15. Have compliance experts been engaged to independently evaluate the effectiveness of a compliance program, inasmuch as the OIG identifies it as a program that should be part of ongoing auditing. Place special emphasis in the scope of work on reviewing whether high-risk areas are being properly addressed.
  16. Do you periodically evaluate that effectiveness of the risk assessment program?


Steve Forman, CPA is the Senior Vice President of Strategic Management Services, LLC (SM), a firm that has assisted more than 3,000 organizations and entities with compliance related matters. The SM sister company, CRC, provides a wide range of compliance tools including sanction-screening. His comments in this blog reflect experience of over 35 years, having served as Director of Management Operations for the OIG, 10 years as VP for Audit and Compliance for a major health system, and as a compliance consultant for many healthcare organizations. Mr. Forman has published widely on this subject.


Richard P. Kusserow served as DHHS Inspector General for 11 years. He currently is CEO of SM.

Connect with Richard Kusserow on Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

10-Year CHIP extension would save $6B

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that a 10-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program would cut $6 billion from the deficit, since the program allows the federal government to avoid paying higher costs for alternate insurance obtained through federally-subsidized marketplaces (CBO Report, January 11, 2018).

The CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation had previously estimated that a five-year renewal for CHIP would add $0.8 billion to the deficit, down from its previous estimate of $8.2 billion. The change stems from Congress’s repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) individual mandate. Without CHIP, parents would be more likely to seek federally-subsidized coverage offered through health insurance marketplaces set up by the ACA, and CBO expects that the individual mandate’s repeal will lead to lower enrollment and higher costs in those marketplaces (see Eliminating individual mandate lowers cost of CHIP funding, Health Law Daily, January 8, 2018).

A longer CHIP extension, through S. 1827 the Keep Kids’ Insurance Dependable and Secure Act of 2017, would yield even higher net savings, the CBO said in response to a question by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ). The KIDS Act would increase the deficit from 2018 to 2020, and decrease the deficit every year thereafter, because the federal matching rate for CHIP would decline from an average of 93 percent in 2019 to 70 percent in 2021 and subsequent years. Under the KIDS Act, the federal costs of insuring children through CHIP would decline as states pick up more of the costs, and would allow the government to avoid paying higher costs for alternative coverage through the marketplaces, Medicaid, and employment-based insurance.

Eliminating individual mandate lowers cost of CHIP funding

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) lowered its estimate of the deficit impact of legislation that would fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for five years, finding that CHIP had become less expensive relative to the rising costs of providing alternative coverage through the federally-subsidized health insurance marketplaces (CBO Report, January 5, 2018).

Prior estimate

The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation previously reviewed S. 1827, the Keep Kids’ Insurance Dependable and Secure Act of 2017, in October, finding then that it would add $8.2bn to the deficit. The new estimate finds that the bill, which would also change the federal matching rate for the program and state eligibility requirements, would only increase the deficit by $0.8 billion over the next ten years.

Individual mandate

The change stems from Congress’s repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) individual mandate. Without CHIP, parents would have to seek alternative coverage, including federally-subsidized coverage offered through health insurance marketplaces set up by the ACA. Without the individual mandate, the CBO expects lower enrollment and higher costs for the insurance marketplaces, which increases the federal cost of enrolling a child in coverage through the marketplaces. The rising marketplace costs make CHIP a more cost-effective alternative to funding children’s health costs, the CBO found.