Specific Estimate of Any Savings. The programs impacted are under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services (i.e., CMS’s Medicaid program and ACF’s TANF program) and the Department of Agriculture (i.e. SNAP program administered by FNS), which are administered by the States (i.e., by SPAAs and their sister agencies). Each SPAA collects information on the costs and benefits related to its state’s use of VA’s information. All savings resulting from PARIS matching program data are in state program dollars, because no costs are paid by SPAAs to either ACF or DMDC to participate. Additionally, GAO, in its 2001 report Public Assistance: PARIS Project Can Help States Reduce Improper Benefit Payments, projected that if States included PARIS data from the TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP programs in their matching activities, the benefit to cost ratio would be approximately 11:1 (GAO 01-935, pp. 14, 15). Recent data received by ACF from states continues to suggest that the PARIS is a cost- effective program. See Attachment D: Cost Benefit Analysis for PARIS Computer Matching Programs, including section “Recent PARIS Success Stores,” for more details.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. The benefit to the United States Treasury of these combined matching programs includes the correction of those cases where there is a decrease in the monthly payment amount, the recovery of detected overpayments, and the Continuing Disability Review work cost avoidance, which project to over $1,258,959,205 billion. The total costs are projected to be approximately $336,668,578 million. The actual savings to the United States Treasury make this matching program cost effective with a benefit to cost ratio of 3.74 to 1.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. Because the goal of the matching programs is to maximize enrollments in qualified health plans to reduce the uninsured population, not to avoid or recover improper payments, the CBA does not result in favorable benefit/cost ratio. The CBA examines how efficiently the matching programs are structured to limit costs and concludes that the existing structure remains more efficient (less costly) than any alternatives.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. There are no cost savings to conducting the Marketplace matching programs, as opposed to not conducting them. However, use of matching programs is effectively mandated by statute and regulation in other to provide for the streamlined application process required by Congress in section 1413 of the PPACA. Therefore, the optimal result is attained by limiting the cost of conducting the matching programs by using a matching program operational structure and technological process that is more efficient than any alternatives.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. The benefit to the United States Treasury of these combined matching operations includes the correction of those records when there is a decrease in the monthly payment amount, the recovery of detected overpayments, and the CDR work cost avoidance. For FY 2018, this matching operation resulted in an estimated overall savings of $240,775,680. The total costs are approximately $19,155,311. These savings to the United States Treasury make this matching operation cost effective with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 12.6:1. See Appendix D.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. DOL conducted the cost-benefit analysis (see Appendix B) of fees DOL paid for states to participate in the matching program and the FY 2021 NDNH match outcomes provided to DOL by each state agency. DOL paid OCSE $2.2 million for all 53 states to participate in the matching program and, after verification of previously unknown earnings, state agencies collectively reported approximately $134 million in established and avoided overpayments attributable to the NDNH. The cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the matching program is likely to be cost effective and will likely continue to help states reduce improper UC benefit payments.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. The benefit to SSA of conducting this matching operation is cost savings or cost avoided, and, potentially, improper payments avoided and/or recovered in excess of costs incurred. The costs savings result from the fact that computer matching increases the efficiency and accuracy of SSA subsidy determinations and reduces the need for manual verifications by Field Offices (FO) of all income and resource allocations on Medicare Part D subsidy initial and redetermination applications. For fiscal year (FY) 2021, SSA’s Office of Public Service and Operations Support reported an average development time of 21 minutes for initial applications and 30 minutes for redetermination applications. Through this matching operation, SSA eliminated the need for manual development (and thus the associated time) of these applications; FOs avoided manual verification of 595,425 initial applications and 16,999 redetermination applications for a total cost-savings of approximately $19,919,865.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. As shown in the cost-benefit analysis (see Appendix B) in federal fiscal year 2022, OCSE conducted the cost-benefit analysis of federal fiscal year 2021 NDNH matching outcomes information provided by state agencies. After verification of previously unknown earnings, state agencies collectively report 7,524 cases that were either closed or had benefits reduced, which collectively avoided approximately $1,342,304 in costs. The cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the matching program is likely to be cost effective and will likely continue to help states reduce benefit payments.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. There are no cost savings to conducting the Marketplace matching programs, as opposed to not conducting them. By requiring a single, streamlined application process, the PPACA effectively required use of computer matching to make eligibility determinations. Therefore, the optimal cost-savings result is attained by limiting the costs of conducting the matching program to the extent possible, and by using a matching program operational structure and technological process that is more efficient than any alternatives. CMS estimates that the cost of operating this computer match is about $39 million per year. CMS' analysis suggests that the benefits of increased enrollment outweigh the costs given the increase in private insurance coverage through the PPACA. The Privacy Act does not require the showing of a favorable ratio for the match to be continued, only that an analysis be done unless statutorily exempted or waived by the DIB. The intention is to provide Congress with information to help evaluate the cost effectiveness of statutory matching requirements with a view to revising or eliminating them where appropriate.
Specific Estimate of Any Savings. For federal fiscal 2017 reporting, only sixteen state agencies submitted performance outcomes, but they demonstrated a combined avoidance of improper payments of approximately $150 million. Because the requirement for state SNAP agencies to access the NDNH is fairly recent, and states continue to become fully operational, the parties to this agreement anticipate that savings and operation benefits derived from the NDNH matching program will continue. Further, as additional state agencies provide performance outcomes, it is likely the cost savings will significantly outweigh the cost to access the NDNH.
