This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-384 entitled 'Medicaid: Source of Screening Affects Women's Eligibility for Coverage of Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment in Some States' which was released on June 22, 2009. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Report to Congressional Requesters: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: May 2009: Medicaid: Source of Screening Affects Women's Eligibility for Coverage of Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment in Some States: GAO-09-384: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-09-384, a report to congressional requesters. Why GAO Did This Study: Tens of thousands of women die each year from breast or cervical cancer. While screening and early detection through mammograms and Pap tests—followed by treatment—can improve survival, low-income, uninsured women are often not screened. In 1990, Congress authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to fund screening and diagnostic services for such women, which led CDC to establish the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000 was also enacted to allow states to extend Medicaid eligibility to women screened under the Early Detection Program and who need breast or cervical cancer treatment. Screened under the program is defined, at a minimum, as screening paid for with CDC funds. GAO examined the Early Detection Program’s screening of eligible women, states’ implementation of the Treatment Act, Medicaid enrollment and spending under the Treatment Act, and alternatives available to women ineligible for Medicaid under the Treatment Act. To do this, GAO compared CDC data on women screened by the Early Detection Program from 2002 to 2006 with federal estimates of the eligible population, surveyed program directors on the 51 states’ (including the District of Columbia) implementation of the Treatment Act, analyzed Medicaid enrollment and spending data, and conducted case studies in selected states. What GAO Found: The CDC’s Early Detection Program providers screen more than half a million low-income, uninsured women a year for breast and cervical cancer, but many eligible women are screened by other providers or not screened at all. Comparing CDC screening data with federal estimates of low-income, uninsured women, GAO estimated that from 2005 through 2006, 15 percent of eligible women received a mammogram from the Early Detection Program, while 26 percent were screened by other providers and 60 percent were not screened. For Pap tests, GAO estimated that from 2004 through 2006, 9 percent were screened by the program, 59 percent by other providers, and 33 percent were not screened. Most states extend Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act to more women than is minimally required. As of October 2008, 17 states met the minimum requirement to offer Medicaid eligibility to women whose screening or diagnostic services were paid for with CDC funds; 15 extended eligibility to women screened or diagnosed by a CDC-funded provider, whether CDC funds paid specifically for these services or not; and 19 states further extended eligibility to women who were screened or diagnosed by a non-CDC-funded provider. In most of the states that offer Medicaid eligibility only to women served with CDC funds or by a CDC-funded provider, if a woman is screened and diagnosed with cancer outside the Early Detection Program, she cannot access Medicaid coverage under the Treatment Act. Medicaid enrollment and average spending under the Treatment Act vary across states. In 2006, state enrollment ranged from fewer than 100 women to more than 9,300. Median enrollment was 395 among the 39 states reporting data, with most experiencing enrollment growth from 2004 to 2006. Among the 39 states, average monthly spending per enrollee was $1,067, ranging from $584 to $2,304. Spending may vary due to several factors, including differences in state eligibility policies and practices and Medicaid benefit plan design. Few statewide alternatives to Medicaid coverage are available to low- income, uninsured women who need breast or cervical cancer treatment but are ineligible for Medicaid under the Treatment Act. Early Detection Program directors in only four of the states with more limited eligibility standards reported having a statewide program that pays for cancer treatment or provides broader health insurance or free or reduced-fee care. And while several sources identified possible local resources as alternatives—donated care, funding from local charity organizations, and county assistance—the availability and applicability of these resources varies by area. For example, an Early Detection Program official in Indiana told us that densely populated areas of the state had multiple treatment resources, but women living in rural areas had limited access to them. Commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Health and Human Services concurred with GAO’s findings. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-384]. For more information, contact James Cosgrove at (202) 512-7114 or cosgrovej@gao.gov. [End of section] Contents: Letter: Background: CDC's Early Detection Program Screens More Than Half a Million Women Annually, but Many Eligible Women Are Not Screened: Most States Extend Medicaid Eligibility to More Women Than the Minimum Required, but Some Women Are Still Excluded Based on Screening Source: Medicaid Enrollment and Spending under the Treatment Act Vary across States: Few Statewide Alternatives to Medicaid Coverage for Treatment Are Available to Low-Income, Uninsured Women; Local Resources Offer Assistance in Some Areas: Agency Comments: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: Appendix II: Number of Women Screened by National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Grantees, 2002-2006: Appendix III: Medicaid Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act Enrollment and Spending, 2006: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: Table: Table 1: Medicaid Enrollment under the Treatment Act by State, Ranked by 2006 Enrollment: Figures: Figure 1: Age of Women Receiving Mammograms or Pap Tests from the Early Detection Program, 2002 through 2006: Figure 2: Race and Ethnicity of Women Receiving a Screening from the Early Detection Program, 2002 through 2006: Figure 3: Percentage of Eligible Women 40 to 64 Years Old Who Received a Mammogram, 2005 through 2006: Figure 4: Percentage of Eligible Women 18 to 64 Years Old Who Received a Pap Test, 2004 through 2006: Figure 5: State Definitions of "Screened under the Program" for Purposes of Medicaid Eligibility, October 2008: Figure 6: Average Monthly Medicaid Spending per Treatment Act Enrollee by State, 2006: Abbreviations: CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: CMS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: FPL: federal poverty level: HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: MDE: Minimum Data Elements: MEPS: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: MSIS: Medicaid Statistical Information System: [End of section] United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: May 22, 2009: The Honorable Max Baucus: Chairman: Committee on Finance: United States Senate: The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski: United States Senate: The Honorable Debbie Stabenow: United States Senate: In 2008, an estimated 182,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 40,000 women died from the disease. In addition, an estimated 11,000 women were diagnosed with and 4,000 women died from cervical cancer. Screening and early detection through mammography and Pap tests to detect breast and cervical cancer--followed by treatment--can improve survival. But among low-income, uninsured women, such screening is underused and access to treatment is sometimes difficult. To improve access to screening, in 1990 Congress authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to make grants to states[Footnote 1] for breast and cervical cancer screening services, which led the CDC to establish the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (the Early Detection Program).[Footnote 2],[Footnote 3] Subsequently, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000 (the Treatment Act) was enacted, which allowed states to offer Medicaid coverage to uninsured women under the age of 65 who were screened under the Early Detection Program and who need treatment for breast or cervical cancer.[Footnote 4] The CDC and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Medicaid program, define what it means to be screened under the Early Detection Program. States electing to provide Medicaid coverage under the Treatment Act must, at a minimum, offer eligibility to women who received screening services paid for, at least in part, with CDC funds. But states have additional flexibility. For example, a state may extend eligibility to women screened by providers such as community health centers or family planning clinics, regardless of whether the providers receive CDC funds. Because of concerns that low-income, uninsured women living in certain states may still have difficulty accessing and paying for treatment services, you asked us to report on the impact of the Early Detection Program and the implementation of the Treatment Act. In this report, we examine (1) how many eligible women have been screened by the Early Detection Program; (2) how states have implemented the Treatment Act; (3) how many women have enrolled in Medicaid under the Treatment Act and the average spending by state for this coverage; and (4) alternatives available to low-income, uninsured women who need treatment for breast or cervical cancer, but are not covered under the Treatment Act. To determine how many eligible women have been screened by the Early Detection Program,[Footnote 5] we analyzed information from the CDC's Minimum Data Elements (MDE)[Footnote 6] on the number of women screened by the program from 2002 through 2006. We then compared this information with estimates from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)[Footnote 7] on the number of low-income, uninsured women[Footnote 8] who would likely be eligible for screening by the Early Detection Program, and with the overall number of women who received a mammogram or a Pap test within the recommended screening interval (2 years for a mammogram, 3 years for a Pap test). To determine how states have implemented the Treatment Act, we conducted a Web-based survey of Early Detection Program directors in the 51 states. We determined that the Early Detection Program directors were knowledgeable about their states' Medicaid eligibility policies and practices regarding the Treatment Act based on preliminary interviews and discussions with the CDC. To determine how many women have enrolled in Medicaid under the Treatment Act, we analyzed data from CMS's Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS).[Footnote 9] Data on Treatment Act enrollment were not available for all states and all years. Data are presented for 2004 (38 states) and 2006 (39 states). To determine the average spending by state for providing coverage under the Treatment Act, we analyzed CMS's MSIS data on Medicaid spending for women under the Treatment Act. As with enrollment data, these data were not available for all states and all years. Spending data are presented for 39 states reporting data for 2006. To identify alternatives available to low-income, uninsured women who need treatment for breast or cervical cancer, but who are not covered under the Treatment Act, we obtained general information from our Web- based survey of Early Detection Program directors. For a more in-depth understanding of these alternatives, we conducted case studies of three states: Florida, Indiana, and Virginia. These states were selected because they are among the states that do not extend Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act beyond the minimum, women whose screening services were paid for with CDC funds. These states also have low rates of low-income, uninsured women screened for breast and cervical cancer by the Early Detection Program when compared to the national average. In each state, we interviewed Early Detection Program directors and other officials,[Footnote 10] representatives of cancer advocacy groups such the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Komen for the Cure),[Footnote 11] and other relevant organizations and providers. For more information on our methodology, see appendix I. We conducted our work from May 2008 to May 2009 in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions. Background: The Early Detection Program is implemented through cooperative agreements between the CDC and 68 grantees--health departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories, as well as 12 American Indian/Alaska Native tribal organizations. The program funds breast and cervical cancer screening services for women who are uninsured or underinsured, have an income equal to or less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL),[Footnote 12] and are aged 40 through 64 for breast cancer screenings or aged 18 through 64 for cervical cancer screenings. Within these eligibility criteria, CDC prioritizes certain groups for screening and individual program grantees may target certain groups or broaden eligibility.[Footnote 13] Breast cancer screening consists of clinical breast exams and mammograms. Cervical cancer screening consists of pelvic exams and the Pap test.[Footnote 14],[Footnote 15] While screening services represent the core of the Early Detection Program, program providers must also provide diagnostic testing and follow-up services for women whose screening tests are abnormal. The CDC funds cannot be used to pay for treatment; however, for women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer, program providers must provide referrals for appropriate treatment services and case management services, if determined necessary. The Early Detection Program, which was reauthorized by Congress in 2007, is funded through annual appropriations to the CDC. According to CDC officials, in fiscal year 2008, total funding for the program was approximately $182 million. To implement the program, the CDC solicits applications to select Early Detection Program grantees every 5 years. All grantees must submit an annual request for funding to CDC. According to CDC officials, annual budgets are awarded based on performance and other factors. By law, grantees must match every $3 in federal contribution with at least $1 in non-federal contribution. [Footnote 16] Grantee matching funds may support the screening or non- screening components of the program. At least 60 percent of the awarded funds must be used for direct clinical services;[Footnote 17] the remainder may be used for other program functions including program management, education, outreach, quality assurance, surveillance, data management, and evaluation. Some grantees have also acquired additional state or local resources for their programs. Early Detection Program grantees typically have a network of local providers such as community health centers and private providers that deliver the screening and diagnostic services to women. Under the Treatment Act states may extend Medicaid eligibility to women who are under age 65, uninsured,[Footnote 18] otherwise not eligible for Medicaid, and who have been (1) screened under the CDC-funded Early Detection Program and (2) found to be in need of treatment for breast or cervical cancer including precancerous conditions.[Footnote 19] All 51 states chose to implement this optional Medicaid eligibility category.[Footnote 20] In doing so they were required to provide full Medicaid coverage to eligible women screened under the Early Detection Program and found in need of treatment for breast or cervical cancer. States must provide Medicaid coverage for the period when the woman needs treatment for breast or cervical cancer.[Footnote 21] In guidance provided to states, CMS and CDC define "screened under the program" as, at a minimum, offering Medicaid eligibility to women whose clinical services under the Early Detection Program were provided all or in part with CDC funds. Accordingly, CDC officials stated that any state offering Medicaid coverage under the Treatment Act would be required, at a minimum, to offer coverage to women screened with CDC funds, provided the women met all other eligibility requirements. The guidance also allows states to use a broader definition of "screened under the program," which includes extending Medicaid eligibility to (1) women screened by a CDC-funded provider within the scope of the state's Early Detection Program, even if CDC funds did not pay for the particular service, or (2) women screened by a non-CDC-funded provider whom the state has elected to include as part of its Early Detection Program. [Footnote 22] CDC's Early Detection Program Screens More Than Half a Million Women Annually, but Many Eligible Women Are Not Screened: The CDC's Early Detection Program screened about half a million or more women for breast and cervical cancer annually from 2002 through 2006. [Footnote 23] In 2006, the program screened 579,665 women. There were 331,672 women screened with mammography and 4,026 breast cancers detected. There were 350,202 women screened with a Pap test and 5,110 cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected. Almost half of all women screened by the Early Detection Program in 2006 were screened by grantees in 10 states.[Footnote 24] (See appendix II for information by grantee.) A number of factors determined how many women were screened by a grantee, including the CDC funding awarded, the availability of other resources, and clinical costs (for example, the use of more costly screening technologies such as digital mammography). Over the 5-year period from 2002 through 2006, the Early Detection Program screened 1.8 million low-income, uninsured women. About 1.1 million women were screened for breast cancer, and 18,937 breast cancers were detected. Similarly, about 1.1 million women were screened for cervical cancer, and 22,377 cervical cancers and precursor lesions were detected. The age and race of women screened reflect the Early Detection Program's policies that prioritize breast cancer screening for women 50 to 64 years old[Footnote 25] and cervical cancer screening for women 40 to 64 years old.[Footnote 26] Thus, women who received a mammogram tended to be older, with 71 percent age 50 or older. Women who received a Pap test tended to be younger, with 55 percent under age 50. (See figure 1.) The program also targets racial and ethnic minorities, who tend to have lower screening rates for breast and cervical cancer, so more than half the women screened were racial or ethnic minorities. (See figure 2.)[Footnote 27] Figure 1: Age of Women Receiving Mammograms or Pap Tests from the Early Detection Program, 2002 through 2006: [Refer to PDF for image; two pie-charts] Mammograms: Age: under 40: 2%; Age: 40-49: 28%; Age: 50-59: 51%; Age: 60-54: 17%; Age: 65 and over: 3%. Pap tests: Age: under 40: 18%; Age: 40-49: 37%; Age: 50-59: 33%; Age: 60-54: 10%; Age: 65 and over: 1%. Source: GAO analysis of CDC MDE data. Notes: Women aged 40-64 are eligible for breast cancer screening and women aged 18-64 are eligible for cervical cancer screening by the Early Detection Program. Some grantees screened women under age 18 years if they were symptomatic or women aged 65 or older if they lacked resources to obtain a screening elsewhere. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. [End of figure] Figure 2: Race and Ethnicity of Women Receiving a Screening from the Early Detection Program, 2002 through 2006: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] American Indian/Alaskan Native: 4%; Asian/Pacific Islander: 6%; Unknown/Multiracial: 3%; Hispanic: 33%; White: 41%; Black: 14%. Source: GAO analysis of CDC MDE data. Notes: Race and ethnicity are self-reported by participants. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. [End of figure] The Early Detection Program screened a small share of all eligible, low- income, uninsured women, but some eligible women sought screenings from other providers and many were not screened at all.[Footnote 28] From 2005 through 2006, we estimated that the Early Detection Program provided mammograms to about 15 percent of eligible women 40 to 64 years old in the recommended 2-year period. About 26 percent received a mammogram from other providers, such as free clinics and mobile vans. The remaining 60 percent of eligible women did not receive a mammogram from any provider. (See figure 3.) According to CDC officials, women do not receive mammograms for a variety of reasons, including a lack of insurance, high personal costs such as deductibles and co-pays, fear of painful procedure, fear of having cancer, lack of knowledge about need for screening or recommended screening intervals, inadequate provider capacity, and a lack of accessibility to services in geographically isolated areas. Figure 3: Percentage of Eligible Women 40 to 64 Years Old Who Received a Mammogram, 2005 through 2006: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Screened by Early Detection Program: 15%; Screened by other providers: 26%; Not screened: 60%. Source: GAO analysis of CDC MDE data. Notes: Eligible is defined as low income (at or below 250 percent of the FPL) and uninsured. Since MEPS does not include women living in the tribes or territories, the percentage of women screened with a mammogram by the Early Detection Program represents those women screened by the 51 state program grantees. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. [End of figure] From 2004 through 2006, we estimated that the Early Detection Program provided Pap tests to about 9 percent of eligible low-income, uninsured women 18 to 64 years old in the recommended 3-year period. About 59 percent were screened by other providers, such as family planning clinics. (See figure 4.) The remaining 33 percent of eligible women did not receive a Pap test from any provider. Women do not receive Pap tests for reasons similar to those for not receiving a mammogram. Figure 4: Percentage of Eligible Women 18 to 64 Years Old Who Received a Pap Test, 2004 through 2006: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Screened by Early Detection Program: 9%; Screened by other providers: 59%; Not screened: 33%. Notes: Eligible is defined as low income (at or below 250 percent of the FPL) and uninsured. Since MEPS does not include women living in the tribes or territories, the percentage of women screened with a Pap test by the Early Detection Program represents those women screened by the 51 state program grantees. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. [End of figure] Most States Extend Medicaid Eligibility to More Women Than the Minimum Required, but Some Women Are Still Excluded Based on Screening Source: Most states extend Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act to more women than is minimally required--those whose screening or diagnostic services were paid for with CDC funds. As of October 2008, 17 states reported applying only this minimum definition in determining Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act. Of the states that extend eligibility, 15 states extend Medicaid eligibility to women served by a CDC-funded provider, whether or not CDC funds were used to pay for services. The remaining 19 states further extend eligibility to women who were screened and diagnosed by non-CDC-funded providers. (See figure 5.) Figure 5: State Definitions of "Screened under the Program" for Purposes of Medicaid Eligibility, October 2008: [Refer to PDF for image: map of the United States] Offer eligibility to women screened and diagnosed with CDC funds only (17 states): Colorado: Connecticut: District of Columbia: Florida: Hawaii: Idaho: Indiana: Minnesota: Missouri: Montana: Nevada: New Mexico: North Carolina: Oregon: South Dakota: Virginia: Wyoming: Extend eligibility to women screened or diagnosed by a CDC-funded provider (15 states): Alabama: Alaska: Arizona: Delaware: Kansas: Kentucky: Louisiana: Maine: Maryland: Mississippi: New Hampshire: New Jersey: North Dakota: Ohio: Vermont: Extend eligibility to women screened or diagnosed by a CDC-funded or non-CDC-funded provider (19 states): Arkansas: California: Georgia: Illinois: Iowa: Massachusetts: Michigan: Nebraska: New York: Oklahoma: Pennsylvania: Rhode Island: South Carolina: Tennessee: Texas: Utah: Washington: West Virginia: Wisconsin: Source: Copyright: Corel Copr. All rights reserved (map); GAO survey of state Early Detection Program directors, October 2008. [End of figure] * Seventeen states offer Medicaid eligibility only to women screened or diagnosed with CDC funds. Fifteen of these states require a woman to have received at least one CDC-funded screening or diagnostic service to be considered "screened under the program." Two states, Florida and the District of Columbia, require that both the screening and diagnostic services be paid for with CDC funds for women to be eligible for Medicaid. * Fifteen states extend Medicaid eligibility to women screened or diagnosed by a CDC-funded provider. In these states, women whose services were paid for with state or other funds, but delivered by a provider receiving some CDC grant funds, are considered eligible for Medicaid if they need treatment. This allows states that fund their Early Detection Programs above the contribution required to receive the CDC grant to extend eligibility to women screened by a program provider but with other funds.[Footnote 29] * Nineteen states further extend Medicaid eligibility to women screened or diagnosed by a non-CDC-funded provider. Some of these states designate specific providers. For example, Iowa extends eligibility to women whose services were provided by Komen-funded providers. Other states consider women eligible for Medicaid under the Treatment Act if they were screened by any qualified provider. Among the states that limit Medicaid eligibility to women served only with CDC funds (17 states) or that extend eligibility to women served by a CDC-funded provider (15 states), some have alternate pathways to Medicaid eligibility for women initially screened or screened and diagnosed outside the Early Detection Program. In most of these states, women initially screened outside the program can qualify for Medicaid if they later receive their diagnostic services with CDC funds. Only four states reported they do not allow women who have been screened outside the program to receive diagnostic services under the program to qualify for Medicaid.[Footnote 30] In most of the states that limit Medicaid eligibility to women served with CDC funds or that extend eligibility to women served by a CDC- funded provider, once a woman who received her screening and diagnostic services outside the Early Detection Program is diagnosed with cancer, she cannot access Medicaid coverage under the Treatment Act. However, Early Detection Program directors in 6 of these states reported that women diagnosed outside the program can be rescreened under the program to qualify for Medicaid, and in 11 states women can qualify for Medicaid by receiving additional diagnostic services from a program provider. Although rescreening or providing additional diagnostic services is inefficient and may be medically unnecessary, program rules in some states require a woman to have received at least one CDC-funded service to qualify for Medicaid. Whether a woman can access Medicaid through one of these alternate pathways depends on her obtaining a referral and on the availability of funds and providers to deliver the additional screening and diagnostic services.[Footnote 31] In implementing the Treatment Act, most states reported they require a confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer, cervical cancer, or precancerous lesions to meet the requirement that women be in need of cancer treatment services.[Footnote 32] Two states, Missouri and New Hampshire, indicated that a woman may be enrolled in Medicaid in order to receive certain diagnostic procedures, such as a biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging. A third state, Oklahoma, indicated that an abnormal screening test alone met the standard of needing treatment and qualified a woman for Medicaid coverage. In Oklahoma, women with an abnormal mammogram or Pap test are enrolled in Medicaid for their diagnostic services, and Medicaid coverage ends if they are found to not have a cancer diagnosis. As of October 2008, 20 states had adopted presumptive eligibility--an option allowed by the Treatment Act--to help women get treatment sooner by provisionally enrolling them in Medicaid while their full application is being processed.[Footnote 33] Among the states that do not have presumptive eligibility, Early Detection Program directors reported that the average length of time it takes a woman to be enrolled once their application has been submitted did not exceed 30 days, with an overall state average of 9 days.[Footnote 34] In most states, whether or not they have adopted presumptive eligibility, a separate visit to the Medicaid office is not required for a woman to be enrolled in Medicaid under the Treatment Act. Early Detection Program staff receive application materials and then forward applications to the Medicaid agency for approval. Medicaid Enrollment and Spending under the Treatment Act Vary across States: Medicaid enrollment under the Treatment Act varied widely in 2006, ranging from fewer than 100 women in each of South Dakota, Delaware, and Hawaii to more than 9,300 women in California. (See table 1.) Enrollment was concentrated in a few states, with California, Oklahoma, and Georgia accounting for more than half of all Treatment Act enrollees in 2006. However, Treatment Act enrollees are a small share of Medicaid enrollees overall--less than 0.5 percent--with a median enrollment of 395 across 39 states reporting data for 2006. Table 1: Medicaid Enrollment under the Treatment Act by State, Ranked by 2006 Enrollment: State: California; 2006 Enrollment: 9,333; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 169. State: Oklahoma; 2006 Enrollment: 6,550; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 1,233. State: Georgia; 2006 Enrollment: 4,142; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 290. State: Tennessee; 2006 Enrollment: 2,903; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 289. State: Texas; 2006 Enrollment: 1,580; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 47. State: Pennsylvania; 2006 Enrollment: 1,521; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 73. State: Michigan; 2006 Enrollment: 1,345; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 80. State: Louisiana; 2006 Enrollment: 1,078; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 156. State: New York; 2006 Enrollment: 897; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 28. State: Illinois; 2006 Enrollment: 639; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 32. State: South Carolina; 2006 Enrollment: 614; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 88. State: Missouri; 2006 Enrollment: 606; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 65. State: Arkansas; 2006 Enrollment: 580; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 127. State: Minnesota; 2006 Enrollment: 477; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 54. State: Washington; 2006 Enrollment: 466; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 44. State: Virginia; 2006 Enrollment: 442; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 34. State: Maryland; 2006 Enrollment: 432; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 45. State: Rhode Island; 2006 Enrollment: 409; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 217. State: Alabama; 2006 Enrollment: 398; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 50. State: Wisconsin; 2006 Enrollment: 395; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 43. State: Oregon; 2006 Enrollment: 394; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 65. State: Nebraska; 2006 Enrollment: 356; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 125. State: New Mexico; 2006 Enrollment: 319; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 102. State: New Jersey; 2006 Enrollment: 318; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 21. State: Florida; 2006 Enrollment: 292; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 10. State: Utah; 2006 Enrollment: 277; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 88. State: Indiana; 2006 Enrollment: 269; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 25. State: Connecticut; 2006 Enrollment: 260; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 41. State: Colorado; 2006 Enrollment: 248; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 33. State: West Virginia; 2006 Enrollment: 247; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 77. State: Mississippi; 2006 Enrollment: 226; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 48. State: Montana; 2006 Enrollment: 197; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 119. State: Wyoming; 2006 Enrollment: 188; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 215. State: Kansas; 2006 Enrollment: 188; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 44. State: Alaska; 2006 Enrollment: 169; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 156. State: Vermont; 2006 Enrollment: 125; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 109. State: South Dakota; 2006 Enrollment: 67; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 56. State: Delaware; 2006 Enrollment: 66; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 45. State: Hawaii; 2006 Enrollment: 42; Enrollment per 100,000 women ages 40-64: 20. Source: GAO analysis of CMS MSIS data and U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates. Note: Enrollment data from the following states were not available: Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio. [End of table] Enrollment may be affected by state policies and practices for initial and ongoing eligibility under the Treatment Act. In general, states with the highest enrollment and highest enrollment as a share of population adopted the broadest definition of "screened under the program" by extending Medicaid eligibility to women served by non-CDC funded providers. In 2006, median enrollment was 639 in these states, or an average of 124 enrollees per 100,000 women 40 to 64 years old. In contrast, median enrollment was 265 in states that limit eligibility to women served with CDC funds or by a CDC-funded provider. In these states an average of 44 women were enrolled for every 100,000 women 40 to 64 years old. Medicaid enrollment of women covered under the Treatment Act has grown in most states. Seven states experienced growth greater than 70 percent, while one state reported a significant decline from 2004 to 2006. (See appendix III.) From 2004 to 2006, the median rate of enrollment growth was 40 percent among the 35 states reporting data for both years. States that shifted to broader definitions of "screened under the program" generally experienced higher than average growth. [Footnote 35] Among states that initially applied the minimum definition of screened under the program, but later broadened eligibility to include women screened by non-CDC-funded providers, enrollment growth averaged 67 percent from 2004 to 2006.[Footnote 36] For example, in 2004 South Carolina limited Medicaid eligibility to women served with CDC funds, but in July 2005 it extended coverage to women served by any qualified provider in the state. Its enrollment grew from 162 women in 2004 to 614 women in 2006.[Footnote 37] Enrollment in Medicaid under the Treatment Act can also be affected by state policies and practices for periodic redetermination of Medicaid eligibility.[Footnote 38] Practices for redetermining eligibility can range from a statement by the beneficiary that she continues to need treatment to a verbal or signed statement by the health provider of the beneficiary's treatment status. For example, in West Virginia, Medicaid enrollment declined from 709 in 2004 to 247 in 2006 after the state imposed stricter redetermination requirements in 2004. As with enrollment, average per capita Medicaid spending under the Treatment Act also varies widely across states (see figure 6). Among the 39 states reporting Medicaid enrollment and spending data for 2006, total monthly spending per Treatment Act enrollee averaged $1,067, ranging from $584 in Oklahoma to $2,304 in Colorado.[Footnote 39] Federal funds accounted for more than two-thirds of this spending. The average monthly state share per enrollee was $307, ranging from $131 in Oklahoma to $806 in Colorado.[Footnote 40] Figure 6: Average Monthly Medicaid Spending per Treatment Act Enrollee by State, 2006: [Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph] State: Alaska; State: $682; Federal: $1,274 Total: $1,976. State: Alabama; State: $279; Federal: $1,029; Total: $1,298. State: Arkansas; State: $345; Federal: $1,534; Total: $1,879. State: Arizona; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: California; State: $270; Federal: $502; Total: $772. State: Colorado; State: $806; Federal: $1,497; Total: $2,303. State: Connecticut; State: $489; Federal: $908; Total: $1,397. State: District of Columbia; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Delaware; State: $304; Federal: $566; Total: $870. State: Florida; State: $431; Federal: $1,066; Total: $1,497. State: Georgia; State: $295; Federal: $775; Total: $1,070. State: Hawaii; State: $268; Federal: $661; Total: $929. State: Iowa; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Idaho; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Illinois; State: $550; Federal: $1,021; Total: $1,571. State: Indiana; State: $404; Federal: $1,156; Total: $1,560. State: Kansas; State: $327; Federal: $853; Total: $1,180. State: Kentucky; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Louisiana; State: $368; Federal: $1,371; Total: $1,739. State: Massachusetts; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Maryland; State: $434; Federal: $806; Total: $1,240. State: Maine; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Michigan; State: $337; Federal: $771; Total: $1,108. State: Minnesota; State: $308; Federal: $571; Total: $879. State: Missouri; State: $440; Federal: $1,211; Total: $1,651. State: Mississippi; State: $266; Federal: $1,319; Total: $1,585. State: Montana; State: $308; Federal: $1,185; Total: $1,493. State: North Carolina; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: North Dakota; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Nebraska; State: $366; Federal: $931; Total: $1,297. State: New Hampshire; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: New Jersey; State: $774; Federal: $1,437; Total: $2,211. State: New Mexico; State: $424; Federal: $1,678; Total: $2,102. State: Nevada; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: New York; State: $359; Federal: $667; Total: $1,062. State: Ohio; State: No data; Federal: No data; Total: No data. State: Oklahoma; State: $131; Federal: $453; Total: $584. State: Oregon; State: $437; Federal: $1,189; Total: $1,626. State: Pennsylvania; State: $326; Federal: $711; Total: $1,037. State: Rhode Island; State: $381; Federal: $815; Total: $1,196. State: South Carolina; State: $393; Federal: $1,437; Total: $1,830. State: South Dakota; State: $455; Federal: $1,405; Total: $1,860. State: Tennessee; State: $276; Federal: $818; Total: $1,094. State: Texas; State: $326; Federal: $857; Total: $1,183. State: Utah; State: $325; Federal: $1,262; Total: $1,587. State: Virginia; State: $462; Federal: $857; Total: $1,319. State: Vermont; State: $269; Federal: $656; Total: $925. State: Washington; State: $598; Federal: $1,111; Total: $1,709. State: Wisconsin; State: $271; Federal: $642; Total: $913. State: West Virginia; State: $308; Federal: $757; Total: $865. State: Wyoming; State: $320; Federal: $680; Total: $1,000. Average monthly spending per enrollee: $1,067. Notes: Enrollment and spending data for the following states were not available: Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Spending may vary across states due to several factors such as differences in Medicaid benefit plan design and reimbursement and differences in eligibility policies and practices. [End of figure] Some of the variation in average total spending per Treatment Act enrollee may be accounted for by differences in state Medicaid reimbursement rates and variation in states' Medicaid benefit packages. [Footnote 41] It may also be affected by the relative proportion of breast and cervical cancer patients. For example, a 2007 study using state Medicaid claims data from 2003 in Georgia found that spending for breast cancer patients averaged more than twice that for cervical cancer patients. In 2003, annual Medicaid spending was $20,285 for each woman with breast cancer, but $9,845 for each woman with cervical cancer.[Footnote 42] State eligibility policies and practices can also affect average spending. For example, Oklahoma, the state with the lowest monthly per person spending under the Treatment Act, enrolls women in Medicaid based on the results of an abnormal screening test alone. Thus, according to an Oklahoma official, many women in Oklahoma are enrolled in Medicaid only for diagnostic services and do not subsequently incur costs for cancer treatment. At $584 per month in 2006, average Medicaid spending per Treatment Act enrollee in Oklahoma is the lowest of the 39 states for which we have data. West Virginia has reduced its overall enrollment from 709 in 2004 to 247 in 2006 by taking a proactive approach to disenrolling women if they have completed their cancer treatment, and cannot otherwise qualify for Medicaid. The state requires more than just a woman's self-certification of her continued need for treatment; case managers actively follow women receiving treatment, and a registered nurse evaluation is required to certify their continued need for treatment and Medicaid eligibility. While total spending in West Virginia declined 50 percent in 2006, average monthly per enrollee spending increased by 19 percent, from $894 to $1,064. Few Statewide Alternatives to Medicaid Coverage for Treatment Are Available to Low-Income, Uninsured Women; Local Resources Offer Assistance in Some Areas: Among states that limit Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act to women screened with CDC funds or that extend Medicaid eligibility to women screened by a CDC-funded provider, few statewide alternatives to Medicaid coverage for treatment are available to low-income, uninsured women who are screened and diagnosed outside of the Early Detection Program.[Footnote 43] Early Detection Program directors in four states[Footnote 44] reported having state-funded programs as an alternative to Medicaid. These programs pay specifically for breast or cervical cancer treatment or more broadly provide health insurance coverage or free or reduced-fee health care. * The Maryland Breast and Cervical Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Program pays specifically for breast and cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment services, according to our survey. Maryland residents who are within 250 percent of the FPL, are uninsured or meet other health insurance criteria, and were screened for breast or cervical cancer by any medical provider, may be eligible for this program. * The Delaware Cancer Treatment Program can pay for treatment of breast or cervical cancer, according to our survey. Delaware residents who have been diagnosed with cancer on or after July 1, 2004, have no comprehensive health insurance coverage, and have household incomes less than 650 percent of the FPL may be eligible for free cancer treatment for up to 2 years under this program. * The state charity hospital system in Louisiana--which provides free health care services for low-income, uninsured residents below 200 percent of the FPL--can provide free breast and cervical cancer treatment, according to our survey. The hospital system also provides reduced-fee care to individuals with incomes above 200 percent of the FPL. * The Healthy Indiana Plan provides health insurance coverage for state residents who are 19 to 64 years old, earn less than 200 percent of the FPL, have been uninsured for the past 6 months, and do not have access to employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, according to our case study. A program official stated that the benefit package was similar to that of Medicaid and included the same provider network. Since the program's implementation in January 2008, enrollment has been higher than expected, and needed treatment could be delayed because the enrollment process may take 60 to 90 days. Early Detection Program directors, advocacy groups, and providers reported in our survey and case studies that some local resources were available as alternatives to Medicaid to pay for treatment of breast or cervical cancer.[Footnote 45] These include donated care, funding from local charity organizations, and county assistance. * Physicians may donate free health care services to low-income, uninsured individuals. Fourteen states reported through our survey having donated care available as a resource for breast or cervical cancer treatment. For example, Project Access has networks of physicians in Virginia that provide donated care to eligible residents in local areas.[Footnote 46] * Local charity organizations can provide resources to pay for breast or cervical cancer treatment, and 20 states reported through our survey having charity funds available. For example, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and Komen for the Cure affiliates in Indiana provide funding for breast or cervical cancer treatment services for low-income, uninsured women. * County indigent funds, public assistance programs, and county hospitals can cover some health care costs for low-income, uninsured individuals in some areas. Eleven states reported having some county indigent funds or other public assistance programs available, according to our survey. In Florida, county hospitals provide breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services, as well as funding for treatment costs, for low-income, uninsured women. However, the availability of these resources varied by locality, and 21 Early Detection Program directors reported as much in our survey. Furthermore, in our case studies, several officials and providers cited concerns over the availability of treatment resources on a local level. For example, an Early Detection Program official in Indiana told us that densely populated areas of the state, such as North Central Indiana and South Bend, had multiple treatment resources, but women living in rural areas had limited access to them. A Komen for the Cure official in Indiana stated there was only 1 county hospital to serve low-income, uninsured residents in a 21-county region. We also spoke with the executive director of a Komen affiliate in Florida who said that some areas of the state, such as West Palm Beach and Tallahassee, had limited treatment resources, while southern areas had more accessible resources. Furthermore, physicians we spoke to in Virginia stated that treatment alternatives vary by location in the state, and some areas have problems with access to care. Although not required, some Early Detection Program staff help women screened outside the program and ineligible for Medicaid under the Treatment Act find local treatment resources, as reported in two of our case study states. Officials said they encouraged these women to contact local or county hospitals or referred them to available local programs. In addition, three Early Detection Program directors surveyed reported having programs that track the treatment process for women screened outside the Early Detection Program. Furthermore, in some states, charity organizations have programs to provide referrals to low-income, uninsured women for local treatment resources. We learned from advocacy group representatives in our case study states that Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society operate cancer resource hotlines and health insurance information hotlines women can call for information about local cancer treatment resources. They also fund patient navigators who provide counseling and support services, which include finding local programs for women ineligible for Medicaid under the Treatment Act. Agency Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reviewed a draft of this report and provided comments on our findings, which are reprinted in appendix IV. Overall, HHS concurred with our description of the Early Detection Program. HHS indicated that the data we provided on states' implementation of the Treatment Act, including eligibility options, Medicaid enrollment, and treatment cost data were useful. Finally, HHS noted that the information contained in our report will be used to make improvements to better serve low-income women. HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of CDC, the Administrator of CMS, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. The report also is available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or cosgrovej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. Signed by: James C. Cosgrove: Director, Health Care: [End of section] Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: To determine how many eligible women have been screened by the Early Detection Program,[Footnote 47] we compared the number of women screened by the Early Detection Program with the number of low-income, uninsured women eligible to be screened, including those who were screened by another provider or were not screened by any provider. We analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Minimum Data Elements (MDE) to determine the number of women screened by the Early Detection Program. Program grantees report these data to the CDC twice a fiscal year (October and April).[Footnote 48] MDE data include data for some women whose services were paid for in part with state or other nonfederal funding. We analyzed MDE data for calendar years 2002 through 2006, including information in total and by grantee on the number of women screened by the Early Detection Program- -those who had mammograms and Pap tests--and the number of breast cancers and cervical cancers or precursor lesions detected. We also analyzed the age, race, and ethnicity distributions of the women screened. The Early Detection Program has policies and procedures for standardizing and assessing the quality of the MDE data submitted by grantees. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes by reviewing these policies and procedures and the results of an MDE data validation study. We then compared the number of women screened by the Early Detection Program to the number of women potentially eligible for screening, which we determined with data collected from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.[Footnote 49] For our analysis of women receiving mammograms, we pooled MEPS data for 2005 and 2006 because the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women receive a mammogram every 1 to 2 years. We identified how many women were 40 to 64 years old--the age group generally eligible for a mammogram by the Early Detection Program--as well as low income and uninsured. We defined low income as at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) because federal guidelines allow the Early Detection Program to pay for services to women whose income is at or below this level. According to MEPS, women are considered uninsured if they indicated for each of the 12 months of the year that they were not covered under any type of health insurance for the entire month. Although underinsured women are eligible for screenings provided by the Early Detection Program, we were not able to identify this population in MEPS.[Footnote 50] Next, we determined how many of these potentially eligible low-income, uninsured women 40 to 64 years old received a mammogram in 2005 to 2006. We then compared this number with the number of women that the Early Detection Program screened with a mammogram in 2005 to 2006.[Footnote 51] For our analysis of women receiving Pap tests, we pooled MEPS data for 2004, 2005, and 2006 because the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women receive a Pap test at least every 3 years. We identified how many women were 18 to 64 years old--the age group generally eligible for a Pap test by the Early Detection Program--as well as low-income and uninsured, using the above criteria. We determined how many women meeting these criteria received a Pap test in 2004 to 2006. We compared this number with the number of women that the Early Detection Program screened with a Pap test in 2004 to 2006. [Footnote 52] In our analyses of women receiving mammograms and Pap tests, we did not examine why women did not receive either of these screening tests, because it was beyond the scope of this report. We determined that the MEPS data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes by speaking with knowledgeable agency officials at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, reviewing related documentation, and comparing our results with CDC and U.S. Census data. To determine how states have implemented the Treatment Act, we conducted a Web-based survey of Early Detection Program directors in the 51 states. We reviewed federal guidelines for implementing the Treatment Act, and interviewed Early Detection Program directors and other officials in selected states to gather information to design the survey questions. We reviewed previous studies of the Treatment Act conducted by George Washington University in 2004 under contract with the CDC and by Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Komen for the Cure) in 2007. We determined that the Early Detection Program directors were knowledgeable about their states' Medicaid eligibility policies and practices for the Treatment Act based on this review and discussions with CDC and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) officials. The survey included both closed-ended and open-ended questions on characteristics of the Early Detection Program, implementation of the Treatment Act, Medicaid eligibility criteria, and the Medicaid enrollment process. We pretested the survey at CDC's national meeting of Early Detection Program directors in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 9, 2008. The survey was fielded during October 2008, and we obtained a 100 percent response rate from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Survey responses were edited for logic and appropriate skip patterns. We reviewed survey responses for outliers and followed up with officials in selected states to verify the accuracy of responses. To determine the number of women enrolled in state Medicaid programs under the Treatment Act and average state spending for this coverage, we analyzed enrollment and spending data from CMS's Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) as presented in the MSIS State Summary Datamart.[Footnote 53] The MSIS contains state-submitted Medicaid enrollment and claims data, including each person's basis of eligibility, use of services, basic demographic characteristics, and payments made to providers. We used MSIS data on the number of women enrolled in Medicaid with the Treatment Act as their basis of eligibility by state for fiscal years 2004 and 2006. We then calculated the average per person monthly spending by state for fiscal year 2006 using MSIS data on total spending for Medicaid enrollees under the Treatment Act and the total number of months of eligibility accounted for by all enrollees during the year. Our analysis was limited to 38 states for 2004 and 39 states for 2006 because MSIS data on enrollment and spending were not available for all states or for all years. According to CMS, data from the remaining states either were not reported separately for Treatment Act eligibility or had not yet passed CMS's data quality control process. In addition, we could not separately determine both the number of women enrolled in Medicaid and Medicaid costs for women by diagnosis (breast cancer, cervical cancer, or precancerous conditions) because enrollment data reported in the MSIS State Summary Datamart are not broken down by diagnostic category. We worked with CMS officials to establish the reliability of the data used in our analysis. States submit their MSIS data quarterly to CMS. The data are submitted to a system of quality control edit checks. Data files that exceed prescribed error tolerance limits are rejected and must be resubmitted by states until they are determined acceptable by CMS. Following the quality review process, data are then posted to CMS's public Web site.[Footnote 54] We also reviewed MSIS documentation including user manuals, design specifications, a data dictionary, and known MSIS data anomalies. We also interviewed knowledgeable CMS officials and followed up with states whose reported enrollment and per capita spending data appeared as outliers when we arrayed the data for all states. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes based on our review. To identify alternatives available to low-income, uninsured women who need treatment for breast or cervical cancer, but who are not covered under the Treatment Act, we obtained general information from our Web- based survey of Early Detection Program directors (described above). We targeted the relevant survey questions to states that limited Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act to women screened or diagnosed with CDC funds or that extend Medicaid eligibility to women screened by a CDC-funded provider. Our findings were limited by responses to a narrowly-worded survey question on statewide programs for breast and cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment and may not necessarily account for all available statewide or state-funded programs. We also conducted case studies of three states that limited Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act to women screened or diagnosed with CDC funds only: Florida, Indiana, and Virginia. We chose these states because their rate of screening eligible women was lower than the national average. In each state, we interviewed: Early Detection Program directors and other officials;[Footnote 55] representatives from Komen for the Cure,[Footnote 56] American Cancer Society local chapters, and other state or local organizations; and health care providers. We developed a protocol for each interview with semi- structured interview questions and obtained detailed examples of available alternatives to Medicaid under the Treatment Act. Our findings are illustrative examples and thus are not generalizable, because the officials we surveyed and interviewed may not have had complete knowledge of all available local resources, and because available resources may vary by state. We conducted our work from May 2008 to May 2009 in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions. [End of section] Appendix II: Number of Women Screened by National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Grantees, 2002-2006: Program: Alabama; Women screened[A]: 37,987; Women screened with mammogram: 19,928; Breast cancers detected: 481; Women screened with Pap Test: 21,526; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 245. Program: Alaska; Women screened[A]: 21,979; Women screened with mammogram: 4,538; Breast cancers detected: 85; Women screened with Pap Test: 19,812; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 435. Program: Arizona; Women screened[A]: 17,521; Women screened with mammogram: 11,502; Breast cancers detected: 267; Women screened with Pap Test: 9,021; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 96. Program: Arkansas; Women screened[A]: 17,889; Women screened with mammogram: 15,879; Breast cancers detected: 288; Women screened with Pap Test: 8,516; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 65. Program: California; Women screened[A]: 394,564; Women screened with mammogram: 322,523; Breast cancers detected: 2,454; Women screened with Pap Test: 112,471; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 498. Program: Colorado; Women screened[A]: 35,674; Women screened with mammogram: 20,465; Breast cancers detected: 410; Women screened with Pap Test: 23,975; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 157. Program: Connecticut; Women screened[A]: 12,330; Women screened with mammogram: 10,784; Breast cancers detected: 137; Women screened with Pap Test: 6,946; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 35. Program: Delaware; Women screened[A]: 9,360; Women screened with mammogram: 2,112; Breast cancers detected: 52; Women screened with Pap Test: 8,190; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 220. Program: District of Columbia; Women screened[A]: 5,832; Women screened with mammogram: 3,831; Breast cancers detected: 32; Women screened with Pap Test: 3,653; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 12. Program: Florida; Women screened[A]: 36,989; Women screened with mammogram: 33,082; Breast cancers detected: 606; Women screened with Pap Test: 21,606; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 107. Program: Georgia; Women screened[A]: 37,937; Women screened with mammogram: 34,074; Breast cancers detected: 577; Women screened with Pap Test: 19,124; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 456. Program: Hawaii; Women screened[A]: 3,277; Women screened with mammogram: 2,924; Breast cancers detected: 81; Women screened with Pap Test: 2,717; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 24. Program: Idaho; Women screened[A]: 8,888; Women screened with mammogram: 7,551; Breast cancers detected: 187; Women screened with Pap Test: 5,183; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 159. Program: Illinois; Women screened[A]: 44,013; Women screened with mammogram: 30,029; Breast cancers detected: 689; Women screened with Pap Test: 27,038; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 1,017. Program: Indiana; Women screened[A]: 25,685; Women screened with mammogram: 10,365; Breast cancers detected: 292; Women screened with Pap Test: 20,087; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 249. Program: Iowa; Women screened[A]: 18,870; Women screened with mammogram: 12,955; Breast cancers detected: 285; Women screened with Pap Test: 13,476; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 171. Program: Kansas; Women screened[A]: 16,243; Women screened with mammogram: 9,490; Breast cancers detected: 164; Women screened with Pap Test: 12,284; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 344. Program: Kentucky; Women screened[A]: 34,928; Women screened with mammogram: 18,136; Breast cancers detected: 207; Women screened with Pap Test: 31,301; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 146. Program: Louisiana; Women screened[A]: 18,967; Women screened with mammogram: 12,532; Breast cancers detected: 181; Women screened with Pap Test: 10,429; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 60. Program: Maine; Women screened[A]: 10,845; Women screened with mammogram: 9,305; Breast cancers detected: 122; Women screened with Pap Test: 8,181; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 64. Program: Maryland; Women screened[A]: 27,059; Women screened with mammogram: 19,267; Breast cancers detected: 294; Women screened with Pap Test: 21,852; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 174. Program: Massachusetts; Women screened[A]: 33,652; Women screened with mammogram: 19,578; Breast cancers detected: 275; Women screened with Pap Test: 21,598; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 684. Program: Michigan; Women screened[A]: 66,507; Women screened with mammogram: 26,263; Breast cancers detected: 355; Women screened with Pap Test: 53,993; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 1,450. Program: Minnesota; Women screened[A]: 29,107; Women screened with mammogram: 18,412; Breast cancers detected: 292; Women screened with Pap Test: 21,964; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 1,056. Program: Mississippi; Women screened[A]: 16,496; Women screened with mammogram: 8,454; Breast cancers detected: 245; Women screened with Pap Test: 10,362; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 181. Program: Missouri; Women screened[A]: 22,102; Women screened with mammogram: 13,875; Breast cancers detected: 552; Women screened with Pap Test: 16,621; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 503. Program: Montana; Women screened[A]: 9,112; Women screened with mammogram: 8,110; Breast cancers detected: 238; Women screened with Pap Test: 6,423; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 220. Program: Nebraska; Women screened[A]: 25,142; Women screened with mammogram: 13,609; Breast cancers detected: 276; Women screened with Pap Test: 20,503; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 852. Program: Nevada; Women screened[A]: 20,702; Women screened with mammogram: 9,366; Breast cancers detected: 217; Women screened with Pap Test: 18,220; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 167. Program: New Hampshire; Women screened[A]: 10,748; Women screened with mammogram: 4,894; Breast cancers detected: 99; Women screened with Pap Test: 8,932; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 335. Program: New Jersey; Women screened[A]: 40,525; Women screened with mammogram: 18,444; Breast cancers detected: 324; Women screened with Pap Test: 35,023; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 327. Program: New Mexico; Women screened[A]: 32,434; Women screened with mammogram: 19,910; Breast cancers detected: 355; Women screened with Pap Test: 24,237; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 517. Program: New York; Women screened[A]: 160,282; Women screened with mammogram: 57,236; Breast cancers detected: 1,288; Women screened with Pap Test: 103,105; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 3,477. Program: North Carolina; Women screened[A]: 43,340; Women screened with mammogram: 32,189; Breast cancers detected: 511; Women screened with Pap Test: 29,159; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 426. Program: North Dakota; Women screened[A]: 6,489; Women screened with mammogram: 3,831; Breast cancers detected: 83; Women screened with Pap Test: 5,639; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 121. Program: Ohio; Women screened[A]: 28,512; Women screened with mammogram: 20,815; Breast cancers detected: 532; Women screened with Pap Test: 20,260; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 189. Program: Oklahoma; Women screened[A]: 31,708; Women screened with mammogram: 10,343; Breast cancers detected: 248; Women screened with Pap Test: 26,214; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 141. Program: Oregon; Women screened[A]: 20,935; Women screened with mammogram: 11,236; Breast cancers detected: 334; Women screened with Pap Test: 15,248; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 278. Program: Pennsylvania; Women screened[A]: 23,897; Women screened with mammogram: 18,754; Breast cancers detected: 383; Women screened with Pap Test: 14,539; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 308. Program: Rhode Island; Women screened[A]: 10,873; Women screened with mammogram: 5,011; Breast cancers detected: 107; Women screened with Pap Test: 8,224; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 280. Program: South Carolina; Women screened[A]: 22,954; Women screened with mammogram: 20,545; Breast cancers detected: 276; Women screened with Pap Test: 19,353; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 93. Program: South Dakota; Women screened[A]: 9,024; Women screened with mammogram: 3,191; Breast cancers detected: 65; Women screened with Pap Test: 7,258; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 144. Program: Tennessee; Women screened[A]: 20,951; Women screened with mammogram: 12,220; Breast cancers detected: 333; Women screened with Pap Test: 12,400; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 514. Program: Texas; Women screened[A]: 65,923; Women screened with mammogram: 45,178; Breast cancers detected: 1,304; Women screened with Pap Test: 35,036; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 2,498. Program: Utah; Women screened[A]: 14,517; Women screened with mammogram: 12,206; Breast cancers detected: 198; Women screened with Pap Test: 8,839; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 63. Program: Vermont; Women screened[A]: 6,660; Women screened with mammogram: 3,200; Breast cancers detected: 65; Women screened with Pap Test: 5,014; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 167. Program: Virginia; Women screened[A]: 15,418; Women screened with mammogram: 14,412; Breast cancers detected: 392; Women screened with Pap Test: 10,719; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 78. Program: Washington; Women screened[A]: 39,480; Women screened with mammogram: 19,470; Breast cancers detected: 547; Women screened with Pap Test: 30,712; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 238. Program: West Virginia; Women screened[A]: 43,789; Women screened with mammogram: 24,897; Breast cancers detected: 392; Women screened with Pap Test: 34,714; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 1,337. Program: Wisconsin; Women screened[A]: 28,716; Women screened with mammogram: 22,331; Breast cancers detected: 397; Women screened with Pap Test: 21,416; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 220. Program: Wyoming; Women screened[A]: 3,011; Women screened with mammogram: 2,277; Breast cancers detected: 83; Women screened with Pap Test: 2,277; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 223. Program: American Samoa; Women screened[A]: 2,055; Women screened with mammogram: 742; Breast cancers detected: 23; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,682; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 7. Program: Guam; Women screened[A]: 1,019; Women screened with mammogram: 847; Breast cancers detected: 7; Women screened with Pap Test: 876; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 8. Program: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands; Women screened[A]: 833; Women screened with mammogram: 155; Breast cancers detected: <5; Women screened with Pap Test: 774; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 5. Program: Republic of Palau; Women screened[A]: 3,416; Women screened with mammogram: 1,228; Breast cancers detected: 6; Women screened with Pap Test: 3,183; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 57. Program: Puerto Rico; Women screened[A]: 296; Women screened with mammogram: 206; Breast cancers detected: <5; Women screened with Pap Test: 262; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 0. Program: Virgin Islands; Women screened[A]: 712; Women screened with mammogram: 386; Breast cancers detected: <5; Women screened with Pap Test: 581; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): <5. Program: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Women screened[A]: 180; Women screened with mammogram: 71; Breast cancers detected: 0; Women screened with Pap Test: 180; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 0. Program: Kaw Nation; Women screened[A]: 1,554; Women screened with mammogram: 851; Breast cancers detected: 6; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,079; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 44. Program: Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation; Women screened[A]: 2,163; Women screened with mammogram: 784; Breast cancers detected: <5; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,995; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 25. Program: Consolidated Tribal Health Project; Women screened[A]: 121; Women screened with mammogram: 47; Breast cancers detected: 0; Women screened with Pap Test: 97; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): <5. Program: Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium; Women screened[A]: 5,472; Women screened with mammogram: 2,795; Breast cancers detected: 41; Women screened with Pap Test: 4,648; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 35. Program: Hopi Tribe; Women screened[A]: 1,747; Women screened with mammogram: 1,358; Breast cancers detected: 13; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,025; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 6. Program: Native American Community Health Center; Women screened[A]: 25; Women screened with mammogram: 21; Breast cancers detected: 0; Women screened with Pap Test: <5; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 0. Program: Navajo Nation; Women screened[A]: 8,707; Women screened with mammogram: 4,141; Breast cancers detected: 21; Women screened with Pap Test: 7,915; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 7. Program: Native American Rehabilitation Association of the Northwest; Women screened[A]: 1,635; Women screened with mammogram: 686; Breast cancers detected: 12; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,398; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 24. Program: Arctic Slope Native Association Limited; Women screened[A]: 1,367; Women screened with mammogram: 615; Breast cancers detected: <5; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,175; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 7. Program: Southcentral Foundation; Women screened[A]: 15,249; Women screened with mammogram: 4,763; Breast cancers detected: 73; Women screened with Pap Test: 14,412; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 170. Program: Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Women screened[A]: 263; Women screened with mammogram: 120; Breast cancers detected: <5; Women screened with Pap Test: 190; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): <5. Program: Cherokee Nation; Women screened[A]: 11,575; Women screened with mammogram: 5,899; Breast cancers detected: 48; Women screened with Pap Test: 9,318; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 128. Program: Cheyenne River Sioux; Women screened[A]: 1,248; Women screened with mammogram: 819; Breast cancers detected: 10; Women screened with Pap Test: 734; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 9. Program: South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency; Women screened[A]: 1,496; Women screened with mammogram: 848; Breast cancers detected: <5; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,088; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 19. Program: National Aggregate; Women screened[A]: 1,800,976; Women screened with mammogram: 1,138,911; Breast cancers detected: 18,937; Women screened with Pap Test: 1,108,006; Cervical cancers and precursor lesions detected (CIN2[B] or worse): 22,377. Source: CDC's Minimum Data Elements reported by Early Detection Program grantees. Notes: This table reports the number of women screened by all Early Detection Program grantees from 2002 through 2006. During this time period, 50 states, the District of Columbia, 15 American Indian/Alaskan Native tribes, and 6 U.S. territories received funding from CDC's Early Detection Program. A few of the tribe and territorial grantees were funded only for a portion of the years, 2002 through 2006. They include the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, Consolidated Tribal Health Project, and Native American Community Health Center. The time period crossed over two funding cycles of the Early Detection Program. [A] This is an unduplicated count of women who received a CDC-funded screening procedure (that is, a mammogram, clinical breast exam, or Pap test). [B] CIN2 is an abbreviation for cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, a condition that can lead to cervical cancer. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix III: Medicaid Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act Enrollment and Spending, 2006: State: Alabama; Enrollment: 2004: 390; Enrollment: 2006: 398; Total annual spending: 2006: $4,733,139; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,309; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,029; Monthly spending per capita: State: $279. State: Alaska; Enrollment: 2004: 124; Enrollment: 2006: 169; Total annual spending: 2006: $2,173,209; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,956; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,274; Monthly spending per capita: State: $682. State: Arizona; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Arkansas; Enrollment: 2004: 405; Enrollment: 2006: 580; Total annual spending: 2006: $8,570,636; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,879; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,534; Monthly spending per capita: State: $345. State: California; Enrollment: 2004: 6,719; Enrollment: 2006: 9,333; Total annual spending: 2006: $69,657,527; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $772; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $502; Monthly spending per capita: State: $270. State: Colorado; Enrollment: 2004: 145; Enrollment: 2006: 248; Total annual spending: 2006: $4,858,792; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $2,304; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,497; Monthly spending per capita: State: $806. State: Connecticut; Enrollment: 2004: 176; Enrollment: 2006: 260; Total annual spending: 2006: $3,861,573; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,397; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $908; Monthly spending per capita: State: $489. State: Delaware; Enrollment: 2004: 47; Enrollment: 2006: 66; Total annual spending: 2006: $356,648; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $870; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $566; Monthly spending per capita: State: $304. State: District of Columbia; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Florida; Enrollment: 2004: 209; Enrollment: 2006: 292; Total annual spending: 2006: $3,719,093; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,497; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,066; Monthly spending per capita: State: $431. State: Georgia; Enrollment: 2004: 2,768; Enrollment: 2006: 4,142; Total annual spending: 2006: $43,601,079; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,071; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $775; Monthly spending per capita: State: $295. State: Hawaii; Enrollment: 2004: 33; Enrollment: 2006: 42; Total annual spending: 2006: $371,361; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $928; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $661; Monthly spending per capita: State: $268. State: Idaho; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Illinois; Enrollment: 2004: 479; Enrollment: 2006: 639; Total annual spending: 2006: $8,138,906; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,570; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,021; Monthly spending per capita: State: $550. State: Indiana; Enrollment: 2004: 275; Enrollment: 2006: 269; Total annual spending: 2006: $3,547,444; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,561; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,156; Monthly spending per capita: State: $404. State: Iowa; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Kansas; Enrollment: 2004: 107; Enrollment: 2006: 188; Total annual spending: 2006: $1,819,427; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,180; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $853; Monthly spending per capita: State: $327. State: Kentucky; Enrollment: 2004: 362; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Louisiana; Enrollment: 2004: 659; Enrollment: 2006: 1,078; Total annual spending: 2006: $16,248,144; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,738; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,371; Monthly spending per capita: State: $368. State: Maine; Enrollment: 2004: 143; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Maryland; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: 432; Total annual spending: 2006: $5,365,543; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,240; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $806; Monthly spending per capita: State: $434. State: Massachusetts; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Michigan; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: 1,345; Total annual spending: 2006: $13,344,682; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,108; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $771; Monthly spending per capita: State: $337. State: Minnesota; Enrollment: 2004: 354; Enrollment: 2006: 477; Total annual spending: 2006: $2,971,940; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $879; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $571; Monthly spending per capita: State: $308. State: Mississippi; Enrollment: 2004: 156; Enrollment: 2006: 226; Total annual spending: 2006: $2,407,028; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,586; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,319; Monthly spending per capita: State: $266. State: Missouri; Enrollment: 2004: 516; Enrollment: 2006: 606; Total annual spending: 2006: $8,611,334; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,650; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,211; Monthly spending per capita: State: $440. State: Montana; Enrollment: 2004: 151; Enrollment: 2006: 197; Total annual spending: 2006: $2,253,399; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,492; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,185; Monthly spending per capita: State: $308. State: Nebraska; Enrollment: 2004: 323; Enrollment: 2006: 356; Total annual spending: 2006: $3,247,296; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,297; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $931; Monthly spending per capita: State: $366. State: Nevada; Enrollment: 2004: 165; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: New Hampshire; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: New Jersey; Enrollment: 2004: 198; Enrollment: 2006: 318; Total annual spending: 2006: $7,018,332; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $2,210; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,437; Monthly spending per capita: State: $774. State: New Mexico; Enrollment: 2004: 309; Enrollment: 2006: 319; Total annual spending: 2006: $6,022,159; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $2,102; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,678; Monthly spending per capita: State: $424. State: New York; Enrollment: 2004: 717; Enrollment: 2006: 897; Total annual spending: 2006: $7,095,939; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,027; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $667; Monthly spending per capita: State: $359. State: North Carolina; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: North Dakota; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Ohio; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: No data; Total annual spending: 2006: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Total: No data; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: No data; Monthly spending per capita: State: No data. State: Oklahoma; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: 6,550; Total annual spending: 2006: $23,226,705; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $584; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $453; Monthly spending per capita: State: $131. State: Oregon; Enrollment: 2004: 217; Enrollment: 2006: 394; Total annual spending: 2006: $5,695,840; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,626; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,189; Monthly spending per capita: State: $437. State: Pennsylvania; Enrollment: 2004: 1,090; Enrollment: 2006: 1,521; Total annual spending: 2006: $12,225,505; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,038; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $711; Monthly spending per capita: State: $326. State: Rhode Island; Enrollment: 2004: 303; Enrollment: 2006: 409; Total annual spending: 2006: $4,039,385; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,197; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $815; Monthly spending per capita: State: $381. State: South Carolina; Enrollment: 2004: 162; Enrollment: 2006: 614; Total annual spending: 2006: $10,491,019; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,830; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,437; Monthly spending per capita: State: $393. State: South Dakota; Enrollment: 2004: 44; Enrollment: 2006: 67; Total annual spending: 2006: $1,259,064; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,860; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,405; Monthly spending per capita: State: $455. State: Tennessee; Enrollment: 2004: 712; Enrollment: 2006: 2,903; Total annual spending: 2006: $25,158,691; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,094; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $818; Monthly spending per capita: State: $276. State: Texas; Enrollment: 2004: 846; Enrollment: 2006: 1,580; Total annual spending: 2006: $18,901,552; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,183; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $857; Monthly spending per capita: State: $326. State: Utah; Enrollment: 2004: 282; Enrollment: 2006: 277; Total annual spending: 2006: $3,852,413; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,587; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,262; Monthly spending per capita: State: $325. State: Vermont; Enrollment: 2004: 73; Enrollment: 2006: 125; Total annual spending: 2006: $938,930; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $924; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $656; Monthly spending per capita: State: $269. State: Virginia; Enrollment: 2004: 336; Enrollment: 2006: 442; Total annual spending: 2006: $5,371,603; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,319; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $857; Monthly spending per capita: State: $462. State: Washington; Enrollment: 2004: No data; Enrollment: 2006: 466; Total annual spending: 2006: $7,244,698; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,709; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $1,111; Monthly spending per capita: State: $598. State: West Virginia; Enrollment: 2004: 709; Enrollment: 2006: 247; Total annual spending: 2006: $2,692,830; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,064; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $863; Monthly spending per capita: State: $201. State: Wisconsin; Enrollment: 2004: 269; Enrollment: 2006: 395; Total annual spending: 2006: $3,313,859; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $913; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $642; Monthly spending per capita: State: $271. State: Wyoming; Enrollment: 2004: 134; Enrollment: 2006: 188; Total annual spending: 2006: $1,601,317; Monthly spending per capita: Total: $1,000; Monthly spending per capita: Federal: $680; Monthly spending per capita: State: $320. Source: GAO analysis of CMS MSIS data. Note: Total annual spending includes both the federal and state share. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: Department Of Health & Human Services: Office Of The Secretary: Assistant Secretary for Legislation: Washington, DC 20201: April 24, 2009: James Cosgrove: Director, Health Care: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street N.W. Washington, DC 20548: Dear Mr. Cosgrove: Enclosed are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report entitled: "Medicaid: Source of Screening Affects Women's Eligibility for Coverage of Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment in Some States (GAO-09-384). The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report before its publication. Sincerely, Signed by: Barbara Pisaro Clark: Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation: Attachment: [End of letter] General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled: Medicaid -- Source Of Screening Affects Women's Eligibility For Coverage Of Breast And Cervical Cancer Treatment In Some States (GAO-09- 384): The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), wishes to thank the GAO for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. HHS concurs with the GAO's overall description of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and respectfully offers the following general comments to add clarification in describing this complex national screening program. Technical comments and edits for the draft GAO report are provided in a separate document. The CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) is built on a public health model and presently funds 68 programs across the country including all 50 states and the District of Columbia plus the 5 U.S. territories and 12 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribes and tribal organizations. Whereas only the states and DC are included in this study of treatment for women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer, we appreciate that the summary of the NBCCEDP (pages 10-13) and Appendix II (pages 40-43), using CDC's Minimum Data Elements (MDE), reflects all NBCCEDP grantee programs within years 2002-2006. The MDEs (NBCCEDP surveillance and tracking system) contain patient- level demographic, screening, diagnostic, and treatment initiation data on every woman receiving an NBCCEDP-funded breast or cervical cancer screening since the program's inception in 1991. The MDE data are routinely used for program management and evaluation by CDC and individual grantee programs. On page 10, the report briefly discusses the factors that determine how many women are screened by a state. The number of women screened by a NBCCEDP-funded program varies depending on many factors such as the amount of CDC and non-Federal funds available (e.g., state appropriations, Komen for the Cure, or the American Cancer Society) for breast and cervical cancer screening, state Medicare reimbursement rate for approved breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic procedures, proportion of breast (more expensive) versus cervical (less expensive) cancer screening, number of diagnostic procedures (more expensive) completed, and other factors. Likewise, screening and treatment availability in a state varies depending on factors such as geographic isolation where medical providers and clinical services are scarce compared to a population dense area such as large cities. CDC is presently conducting an economic cost analysis study of the 68 NBCCEDP- funded programs; a pilot cost analysis study[Footnote 57] in nine states was published in December, 2007. On pages 13-15 and 34-35, the report described their analysis of MEPS (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey) data to obtain an estimated eligible population and calculate a screening rate for breast and cervical cancer by the NBCCEDP. The CDC and US Census Bureau have collaborated in analyzing official Census data to determine the estimated eligible population for the NBCCEDP and the program's screening rates. CDC notes that the estimated screening rates for both cancers using MEPS are entirely consistent with the screening rates calculated using official U S Census data -- 15% versus 14.7 for breast cancer screening [Footnote 58] and 9% versus 8.7% percent for cervical cancer screening. [Footnote 59] We are very pleased and grateful to have independent validation of our screening rates by GAO. However, CMS notes that the report is silent as to why so many women fail to access the system and receive the screening benefit. Moreover, a new dataset, "Health Insurance Coverage Status by Age, Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Income for Counties and States: 2005," was jointly released by CDC and the US Census Bureau online in October, 2008 [hyperlink, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/sahie/data/index.html]. This dataset is available for the first time and allows users to generate state-specific and county-specific estimates of eligible population for the NBCCEDP. Such small area analyses will enable better targeting and resource allocation to reach eligible women for screening. Through ongoing collaboration, we plan to continuously update the estimated eligible population and screening rates as new Census population estimates become available. On pages 18-19, the report describes the alternative pathways to Medicaid eligibility for women initially screened or screened and diagnosed outside the Early Detection Program. Within the national program guidelines for eligibility, each grantee program implements policies and strategies to reach underserved women. The CDC national program guidelines allow diagnostic referrals for women with an abnormal screening test whose initial screening was not paid for with NBCCEDP funds. If these women meet the NBCCEDP eligibility criteria, program funds may be used to pay for their diagnostic work-up. As for the 11 states the report described who rescreen or provide additional diagnostic tests for women already screened and diagnosed with cancer by a non-program provider, CDC has no data or evidence that this is a highly prevalent practice. On pages 27-31, the report addresses `Alternatives to Medicaid Coverage for Treatment...' and describes the challenges and some examples of treatment options other than through the Treatment Act. In accepting CDC funding, NBCCEDP grantees are required to identify alternative sources of treatment for women who are diagnosed with breast and/or cervical cancer if they do not qualify to receive treatment through the Medicaid Program. CDC's grantee staff know that women may die from cancer if they do not have access to treatment. They passionately care, know their communities, and exercise creativity and determination in identifying alternative sources of treatment for these women. We would like to add that once a woman's cancer treatment is completed through Medicaid or an alternative source, those who continue to meet the NBCCEDP eligibility requirements may re-enter the program for rescreening consistent with recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force for breast and cervical cancer screening. Regular re-screening is critically important for women who have had cancer and been successfully treated. On pages 15-18, 21-26, 36-38, and 44-45, the report describes implementation of the Treatment Act through state Medicaid Programs. CDC appreciates having access to current information on the Medicaid (Treatment Act) eligibility options used in states, Medicaid enrollment, and treatment cost data. Finally, on page 36, the report notes, 'the Early Detection Program Directors were knowledgeable about their states' Medicaid eligibility policies and practices for the Treatment Act...' The CDC values its partnership with the Medicaid Program and we would particularly like to acknowledge the excellent and effective partnership between the NBCCEDP grantees and their state Medicaid Programs. All across the country, staff from both programs closely collaborates to facilitate timely access to treatment for eligible women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. HHS was pleased to cooperate with the GAO on their study of the NBCCEDP and Medicaid Program's implementation of the Treatment Act. The information contained in this report will certainly be used to make improvements to better serve low income women in need of breast and cervical cancer screening across the country. [End of section] Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: James C. Cosgrove, (202) 512-7114 or cosgrovej@gao.gov: Acknowledgments: In addition to the contact named above, Jennifer Grover, Assistant Director; Anne Dievler; Eric Anderson; Seta Hovagimian; Dan Ries; Hemi Tewarson; Timothy J. Walker; and Suzanne Worth made key contributions to this report. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] CDC may make grants to states, which is defined under federal law as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. In this report however, the term states only refers to the 50 states and the District of Columbia. [2] Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-354, 104 Stat. 409 (1990) (codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. § 300k, et seq.). In 1993, Congress also expressly authorized the CDC to make grants to tribes and tribal organizations for breast and cervical cancer screening services. Preventive Health Amendments of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-183, § 101, 107 Stat. 2226, 2228 (1993) (codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. § 300n(c)(3)). [3] CDC defines eligibility for the Early Detection Program as women who are low income and uninsured or underinsured, such as those who have limited insurance coverage or a high deductible. [4] Pub. L. No. 106-354, 114 Stat. 1381 (2000) (codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a, 1396b, 1396d, 1396r-1b). U.S. territories also have the option of extending this Medicaid coverage to eligible women. [5] In this report "screened by the Early Detection Program" means screened by providers who receive CDC funding from grantees of the Early Detection Program. [6] MDE are data reported by Early Detection Program grantees to CDC. The MDE include data for women whose services were paid for in part or in full with CDC funding. [7] MEPS, a survey administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, is a set of large-scale surveys of families and individuals, their medical providers (doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc.), and employers across the United States. The survey collects information including individuals' demographics, health status, and insurance status. [8] We defined low income as at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) because federal guidelines allow the Early Detection Program to pay for services for women whose income is at or below this level. Since some grantees set their income eligibility criteria below 250 percent of the FPL, our estimate of potentially eligible low-income women may be a slight overestimate. However, this may be offset by the fact that we were unable to estimate the number of women who were underinsured and thus potentially eligible for the Early Detection Program, as MEPS does not include information on whether women were underinsured. [9] The MSIS contains state-submitted Medicaid enrollment and claims data. [10] Other officials included regional coordinators, a quality assurance coordinator, and a case manager. [11] Komen for the Cure is a nonprofit organization that supports education, research, and treatment for breast cancer. [12] Under federal law, grantees must prioritize services to low-income women. 42 U.S.C. § 300n(a). Under its guidance, CDC has defined low income as at or below 250 percent of the FPL. Forty-two grantees set their income criteria at 250 percent of the FPL; 17 at 200 percent; 2 at 225 percent; and 1 at 185 percent. The income criteria for the remaining 6 grantees was not available. Under federal law, grantees must also provide services free of charge to women with income of less than 100 percent of the FPL. 42 U.S.C. § 300n(b). [13] CDC prioritizes screening of women aged 50 to 64 for breast cancer and women aged 40 to 64 who have not been screened in the past 5 years for cervical cancer. Some grantees screen women younger than 18 if they are symptomatic, or 65 and older if they lack the resources to obtain a screening elsewhere. Although women who are enrolled in Medicare Part B are not eligible for the Early Detection Program, the program can serve women 65 and older who cannot afford the premium to enroll in Medicare Part B or are ineligible for Medicare Part B. [14] In the Pap test, cells are collected from the cervix to detect cancer or abnormal cells that may lead to cancer. [15] The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examinations, every 1 to 2 years for women aged 40 and older and Pap tests for women every 3 years, beginning about 3 years after onset of sexual activity, but no later than age 21. [16] 42 U.S.C. § 300l(a). The average size of CDC's grant in 2008 was $2.3 million. The range was from about $75,000 to $8.8 million. [17] Under federal law, at least 60 percent of the CDC grant must be expended to provide breast and cervical cancer screenings, to provide appropriate referral for treatment for women screened, and to ensure that the women receive--to the extent practicable--appropriate follow- up services and support services. U.S.C. § 300m(a). [18] A woman must not otherwise have "creditable coverage," which includes a group health plan, Medicare, Medicaid, Armed Forces insurance, or a state high-risk health insurance pool. However, there are limited circumstances when a woman has creditable coverage but is not actually covered for breast or cervical cancer treatment, which allows her to qualify for Medicaid. For example, if a woman has coverage but is in a period of exclusion for treatment of breast or cervical cancer or has exhausted her lifetime limit on benefits under her health insurance plan, she would not be considered covered for breast or cervical cancer treatment. [19] In 2001, the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act was enacted, providing states with the option to extend this Medicaid coverage to American Indians and Alaska Natives who are eligible for health services provided by the Indian Health Service or by a tribal organization. Pub. L. No. 107-121, 115 Stat. 2384 (2002) (codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(aa)). [20] States seeking to implement the Treatment Act were required to submit an amendment to their existing Medicaid state plan to CMS for approval. State plan amendments were approved for 50 states. Massachusetts amended its existing section 1115 Medicaid demonstration project to include coverage of women with breast or cervical cancer. [21] Once a woman has completed treatment and is no longer enrolled in Medicaid, those who continue to meet Early Detection Program eligibility requirements may reenter the program for rescreening consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for breast and cervical cancer screening. [22] Regardless of which definition a state chooses, women must meet the income and uninsured status requirements of the Early Detection Program in order to be eligible for Medicaid. [23] The number of women screened is an unduplicated count of women who received a CDC-funded screening procedure (that is, a mammogram, clinical breast exam, or Pap test). A woman might receive more than one procedure in a given year, but she would only be counted once. [24] The states were California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. [25] Twenty-five grantees set the minimum age for mammograms at age 50. However, some of these grantees will cover clinical breast exams at an earlier age or will provide mammograms to a younger woman if she is symptomatic. [26] Thirty-three grantees set the minimum age for cervical cancer screening at age 40 or older. However, some of these grantees will screen younger women, if symptomatic, for diagnostic purposes or for other specific reasons. [27] Race and ethnicity are self-reported by participants. [28] We estimated the number of low-income, uninsured women potentially eligible for screening through the Early Detection Program by identifying women whose income was at or below 250 percent of the FPL and who were uninsured. [29] Early Detection Program directors in 32 states reported receiving additional state or other funds in 2008 over and above the CDC grant. [30] These states are Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina. [31] Early Detection Program providers are not available in all areas of all states. Some Early Detection Program providers have waiting lists for screening and diagnostic services and some exhaust their available funds before the end of the year. One-third of state programs reported having to suspend or limit screening services to eligible women in at least 1 of the 3 previous years after expending their CDC funds before the end of the program year. [32] According to CMS guidance, cancer treatment services can include diagnostic services to determine the extent and proper course of treatment, as well as definitive cancer treatment. [33] Presumptive eligibility allows states to enroll Medicaid applicants for a limited period of time before full Medicaid applications are filed and processed, based on a determination by a Medicaid provider of likely Medicaid eligibility. [34] With the exception of unusual circumstances, states have up to 45 days from the submission of a Medicaid application by a nondisabled applicant to determine the applicant's eligibility and notify the applicant. 42 C.F.R. § 435.911(a). [35] Several states that initially offered coverage under the Treatment Act to women served with CDC funds subsequently adopted broader eligibility policies. Kansas, Ohio, and Vermont extended coverage to women served by any CDC-funded provider--with or without CDC funds. South Carolina, Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts extended coverage to women served by non-CDC-funded providers. [36] This includes data from 5 of the 6 states listed above. Data were not available for Massachusetts. [37] To address recent state budget challenges, the South Carolina Medicaid agency revised its eligibility policy for the Treatment Act. As of January 1, 2009, coverage under the Treatment Act was available only to women whose screening services were paid for with CDC funds. [38] Under federal regulations, states must redetermine the eligibility of Medicaid beneficiaries at least once every 12 months. 42 C.F.R. § 435.916(a). [39] Median average monthly spending across the 39 states was $1,309 in 2006. [40] States receive an enhanced federal matching assistance percentage, which is the amount the federal government reimburses states for expenditures incurred in providing services to women enrolled in Medicaid under the Treatment Act. In 2006, these percentages, for expenditures for women enrolled in Medicaid under the Treatment Act, ranged from 65 percent to 83 percent. [41] Women enrolled in Medicaid under the Treatment Act qualify for the full range of Medicaid benefits offered in a state, and states differ in the range of services included in their Medicaid benefit package. [42] E. Kathleen Adams et al., "The Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act (BCCPTA) in Georgia: Women Covered and Medicaid Costs in 2003," Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association, vol. 1, no. 1 (2007). The researchers identified 1,655 women with breast or cervical cancer who were enrolled in Medicaid under the Treatment Act at the time of their first claim. Of these women, 1,093 had claims for breast cancer and 595 had claims for cervical cancer. The study excluded women who only had claims for treatment of a precancerous cervical condition. [43] Low-income, uninsured women who are screened outside of the Early Detection Program and ineligible for Medicaid under the Treatment Act may be eligible to enroll in their state Medicaid program through other eligibility categories; for example, women who are pregnant, have children under the age of 18, or are disabled. [44] State-funded programs reported here reflect Early Detection Program directors' responses to our survey question about statewide programs targeted to breast and cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment and may not necessarily account for all available statewide or state- funded programs. [45] Our analysis was based on our review of states that limit Medicaid eligibility under the Treatment Act to women screened with CDC funds or that extend Medicaid eligibility to women screened by a CDC-funded provider. [46] Project Access is a community partnership of health care providers that provide donated primary care and specialty care to low-income, uninsured individuals in the regions they serve. Other states have created networks of community organizations modeled after Project Access. [47] In this appendix, "screened by the Early Detection Program" means screened by providers who receive CDC funding from grantees of the Early Detection Program. Within the period 2002 through 2006, funding was provided to health departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 6 U.S. Territories, and 15 American Indian/Alaska Native tribal organizations. The time period crossed over two funding cycles of the CDC's Early Detection Program. [48] The MDE are a set of standardized data elements considered to be minimally necessary for grantees and CDC to monitor client demographics and clinical outcomes of women screened by the program. [49] As part of its household component, MEPS collects the following information from individuals: demographic characteristics, health conditions, health status, use of medical services, charges and source of payments, access to care, satisfaction with care, health insurance coverage, income, and employment. [50] Our estimate of low-income women may be a slight overestimate because 20 grantees set their income eligibility criteria below 250 percent of the FPL. However, this may be offset by the fact that we were not able to estimate the number of women who were underinsured, who were potentially eligible for the Early Detection Program. [51] Since MEPS does not include women living in the tribes or territories, the number of women screened with a mammogram by the Early Detection Program represents those women screened by the 51 state program grantees. [52] Since MEPS does not include women living in the tribes or territories, the number of women screened with a Pap test by the Early Detection Program represents those women screened by the 51 state program grantees. [53] The MSIS State Summary Datamart was accessed from [hyperlink, http://msis.cms.hhs.gov] (downloaded January 28, 2009). [54] CMS's MSIS data contractor has not followed up with states failing to report data in the Treatment Act enrollment category, citing the small number of enrollees compared to the overall Medicaid program. [55] Other officials included regional coordinators, a quality assurance coordinator, and a case manager. [56] We interviewed representatives from Komen state affiliates and a Komen-funded patient navigator. Komen patient navigators are health care workers who provide counseling and support services to breast cancer patients to help them navigate through the health care system and receive quality care. [57] Ekwueme DU, Gardner JG, Subramanian S, Tangka FK, Bapat B, Richardson LC. (2008) Cost analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program; selected states, 2003 to 2004. Cancer 112:626-35. [58] Tangka FK, Dalaker J, Chattopadhyay SK, Gardner JG, Royalty J, Hall IJ, DeGroff A, Blackman DK, Coates RI. (2006) Meeting the mammography screening needs of underserved women: the performance of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program in 2002- 2003 (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17(9):1145-54. [59] Tangka FL, O'Hara B, Gardner JC, Turner J, Royalty J, Shaw K, Sahatino S, Ingrid J.E. Hall, Coates RJ,. Meeting the Cervical Cancer Screening Needs of Underserved Women: The Performance of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program in 2003-2005. This manuscript is presently under review by a peer-review journal for publication consideration. [End of section] GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "E-mail Updates." Order by Phone: The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: Washington, D.C. 20548: