Bundle: #7 (CHIPRA Cycle III and IV), #39 (Learning Collaboratives), and #40 (BIPP Template; formerly, CMS-10411, OCN 0938-1145)

MEMORANDUM

220 East Huron Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1912 Telephone (734) 794-1120 Fax (734) 794-0241 www.mathematica-mpr.com

TO: Falecia Smith, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services

FROM: Melanie Au, Adam Swinburn and Maggie Colby DATE: 3/9/2015

SUBJECT: Medicaid and CHIP Learning Collaborative Assessment Interviews: State Selection

As proposed in our draft work plan of February 27, we will conduct telephone interviews with Learning Collaborative (LC) state participants to understand their perceived benefits from participating in the LCs and to obtain suggestions for LC improvement. Between April and June, we plan to conduct telephone interviews with seven state participants from each of five LCs: the Basic Health Program (BHP), Data Analytics (DA), Exchange Innovators (EI), Expanding Coverage (Coverage), and Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) LCs. This memo outlines our approach to selecting state participants for these 35 interviews.

BHP LC

The Basic Health Program LC has included participants from nine different states since it launched in May 2013. We plan to interview New York and Minnesota, which have implemented Basic Health Programs; Colorado, which joined the LC later than the other states; two states that have been relatively active participants in the LC (California and Oregon) and two that have been less involved (Washington, DC and Rhode Island).

DA LC

The focus of the Data Analytics LC has shifted over time from facilitating dialogue on emerging data analytics issues, to development of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility and enrollment performance indicators, to supporting all states in the reporting and use of those indicators. We plan to interview four of the eight states that were involved in the dialogue phase of the LC (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois and South Carolina), including two that were actively involved in the development of performance indicators (Illinois and South Carolina). We also plan to interview three states (to be determined) that received technical assistance (TA) on reporting and use of performance indicators as part of the LC’s expanded TA activities that involve direct communication with states. Of the three states receiving technical assistance, we will identify one that has done fairly well from the project’s outset, one that has clearly improved its reporting over the course of the last LC year, and one that indicated its reporting would improve following new-eligibility system implementation. We identified the first four states through consultation with the LC facilitation team. We will identify the remaining three states after the LC’s activities involving direct TA to states are underway.

EI, Coverage, and FFM LCs

To provide opportunities for states to learn and collaborate with each other and CMS, the EI, Coverage and FFM LCs have used a combination of webinars, meetings, and written products such as issue briefs, model notices and guidance documents. For each of these LCs, we plan to interview two or three states that the LC facilitation teams have identified as having participated actively (by presenting state experiences or contributing frequently to discussions); two or three states that have been regular attendees at meetings and webinars; and two states that have not been regular participants (Table 1). We are including some states that have changed their level of participation over the life of the LC as that may provide some interesting insight on LC facilitation and leadership. For example, Kansas’ participation in the FFM LC has decreased over time, while Michigan has been actively involved in 2015.

Table 1. States to be interviewed for the EI, Coverage and FFM LCs by participation level

LC	Active participants	Regular attendees	Occasional attendees
Exchange Innovators	MA, MD	CA, CO, NV	HI, KY
Expanding Coverage	NY, WA	AR, MN, TN	AL, OK
Federally Facilitated Marketplace	IL, MI, NH	AZ, VA	KS, NM

Coordinating our approach

To identify which individuals to interview, we will contact the participant from the selected state who has served as the primary state contact for LC activities. We will invite that individual to be interviewed or to nominate an alternate who has participated in LC activities and whom they judge to be a better fit for the interview. So as to limit respondent burden, we will ensure that we do not invite any single LC participant to take part in more than two assessment interviews (Table 2). However, we plan to interview some respondents about their experiences in two LCs, as their ability to compare experiences in the two LCs may provide valuable insights.

Table 2. States to be interviewed, by LC

LC	States
Basic Health Plan	CA, CO, DC, MN, NY, OR, RI
Data Analytics	AL, GA, IL, SC + 3
Expanding Coverage	AL, AR, MN, NY, OK, TN, WA
Exchange Innovators	CA, CO, MA, MD, NV, KY, HI
Federally Facilitated Marketplace	AZ, IL, MI, NH, NM, KS, VA

States shown in bold will be interviewed about their experiences in two LCs.

An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer