Fund Mapping: Analyzing and Developing Childrens Budgets at the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Fund Mapping: Analyzing and Developing Childrens Budgets at the County and Regional Level to Advance System of Care Planning, Expansion, and Sustainability Deborah Harburger, MSW, Clinical Instructor The Institute for Innovation &
Fund Mapping: Analyzing and Developing Children’s Budgets at the County and Regional Level to Advance System of Care Planning, Expansion, and Sustainability
Deborah Harburger, MSW, Clinical Instructor The Institute for Innovation & Implementation, University of Maryland, Baltimore David McNear, Fiscal Strategist McNear Fiscal Surveying Stef Fakelis, Director of Business Operations Stark County (Ohio) Mental Health & Addiction Recovery Workshop #66
include a review of result indicator data to document trends in investments and corresponding results over time.
health fund mapping process to advance their community-based service array development and financing strategies.
map can enhance communication and collaboration between cross-system program and fiscal staff as well as families and youth.
Funded in part through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Grant #1U79SM062471. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the funder, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This information is in the public domain. Readers are encouraged to copy and share it.
fund matrices and fund maps by using examples from local jurisdictions
map
early childhood fund map and discuss what might be learned
families, the federal government calculates the cost of raising a child.
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has estimated both annual child-rearing expenses by age and the cumulative cost
through age 17.
USDA reports on 2015 expenses to raise a child.
$9,690 $9,700 $9,330 $9,960 $9,570 $9,980 $12,680 $12,730 $12,350 $13,180 $13,030 $13,900 $19,770 $19,790 $19,380 $20,700 $21,050 $23,380 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Aged 0-2 Aged 3-5 Aged 6-8 Aged 9-11 Aged 12-14 Aged 15-17
Annual Child Rearing Expense, Nationwide, 2015
Upper-Income Middle-Income Lower-Income
Housing, 29% Food , 18% Transportation , 15% Clothing, 6% Health Care, 9% Child Care & Education, 16% Miscellaneous, 7%
Cumulative Expenses by Category -- Percent of Total Expenditures, 2015
31% 24% 16% 11% 4% 2% 12% 29% 18% 15% 6% 9% 16% 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Housing Food Transportation Clothing Health Care Child Care & Education Miscellaneous
Cumulative Child Rearing Expenses - Change in Percent of Total Spending
2015 1960
spending areas that are increasingly squeezing a family’s budget, as well as broader economic or societal trends.
citywide investments, including by Baltimore, Charlotte, and Seattle.
spending, including by the State of Maryland (see Appendix K) and the New Mexico Children’s Cabinet, as well as by statewide child advocacy groups, including in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah.
at federal spending on children and youth nationwide, including First Focus: Campaign for Children and The Urban Institute Kids’ Share project.
mapping process.
What are the pros and cons to creating a budget matrix & fund map for a local jurisdiction or region?
control the child welfare, juvenile justice, education, and
used and look for areas of duplication
priorities
career fund mapping expands on a children’s budget.
funds, in addition to spending.
to document trends in investments and corresponding results over time, e.g., Maternal and Children Health spending trends vs. infant mortality or rates of babies born with low birth weight
Children’s Fund Matrices Help You to See the Big Picture
informed the strategic planning of Baltimore’s Promise, which was initially supported with jump-start funding from the new investor partners.
demonstrated a fully resourced cradle to career continuum in Baltimore City and supported the messaging after the civil unrest for a successful 2016 City charter amendment to establish a continuing, dedicated $12 million Children and Youth Fund.
Summary
function can document progress in shifting resources from “deep-end,” restrictive and expensive programs to proven, “front-end” preventive efforts.
D.C., in Prince George’s County, Maryland, cradle to career preventive spending increased by $146 million from FY 2013 to FY 2015, while corrective spending increased by $95 million.
Preventive, $934,199,194 Preventive, $925,942,041 Preventive, $1,071,640,305 Maintenance, $1,154,833,531 Maintenance, $1,235,374,292 Maintenance, $1,282,818,479 Corrective, $646,328,174 Corrective, $687,323,449 Corrective, $782,527,213 $0 $500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $2,500,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $3,500,000,000 FY 2011 FY 2013 FY 2015
Prince George's County, MD: Cradle to Career Spending by Major Function
Health and Human Services as Baltimore City experienced the lingering effects of the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and Medicaid and SNAP caseloads remained high.
FY 2006 FY 2011 FY 2013 FY 2015 FY 2017 Est. Education $1,036,291,419 $1,407,532,366 $1,446,326,894 $1,442,931,428 $1,476,459,811 Health $592,815,361 $710,396,806 $664,306,759 $673,169,185 $696,638,423 Human Services $788,897,243 $1,193,527,879 $1,217,855,226 $1,189,617,679 $1,200,873,697 Public Safety $163,519,934 $185,390,186 $211,915,733 $223,816,053 $236,975,489 Total Cradle to Career $2,581,523,958 $3,496,847,236 $3,540,404,612 $3,529,534,345 $3,610,947,420
Analyze Spending by Fund Source
Baltimore City
broad range of philanthropic investments and engage foundations to sustain support.
and public spending also demonstrates the relative levels of support and the importance of public funding to a fully funded environment.
fund map can track change in spending per child and compare to growth in revenue and inflation.
whether investments in children and youth received a “fair share”
the City of Canton, per child spending growth far outpaced the regional inflation rate and local and state per child spending grew faster than local and state revenue.
14.5% 8.6% 17.5% 10.4% 14.4% 2.2% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% Per Child Spending State Revenue Per Child State Spending County Revenue Per Child Local Spending Cleveland-Akron Inflation
Stark County, OH: Percent Change FY 2014-FY 2017 Cradle to Career Spending Growth vs. Revenue & Inflation Growth
Advocacy Tool
debated and new requirements being implemented, funding for services for working families and vulnerable children and adults is threatened.
benefits of these funding streams, the fund map data can build support for these entitlement programs.
Medicaid Expend. & SNAP Benefits in Metro Denver
Medicaid, $740,390,597 Medicaid, $806,848,260 Medicaid, $283,394,164 Medicaid, $45,416,426 Medicaid, $1,168,063,253 Medicaid, $152,644,383 Medicaid, $635,961,119 SNAP, $75,962,092 SNAP, $71,993,891 SNAP, $22,428,361 SNAP, $2,561,076 SNAP, $125,417,519 SNAP, $6,989,042 SNAP, $46,050,103 $0 $400,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,600,000,000 Adams Arapahoe Boulder Broomfield Denver Douglas Jefferson
Example: Ohio CHIP Expenditures
$488,508,143 $49,880,742 $52,745,457 $35,586,094 $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 Ohio Cuyahoga (Cleveland) Franklin (Columbus) Hamilton (Cincinnati)
FY 2017 Children's Health Insurance Program Spending
Federal $48,207,567 Federal $50,974,280 Federal $34,391,625 State $1,673,175 State $1,771,177 State $1,194,469 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 Cuyahoga (Cleveland) Franklin (Columbus) Hamilton (Cincinnati)
FY 2017 Ohio Children's Health Insurance Program Spending by Funding Source
Connect Investments to Outcomes and/or Explore the Data Further Related to Specific Populations
School Readiness Scores 3rd Grade Reading Results 5th Grade Reading Results 8th Grade Reading Results K-12 Education Per Student Spending Child Care Per Child Spending
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
45.7% 20.7% 45.7% 51.8% 40.5%
Boosted Education Investments Improved Education Outcomes
Percent Change 2004-2005 to 2010-2011
Zooming In: Baltimore’s Outcome Area Fund Maps
fund map can zoom in to spending at the neighborhood or zip code level.
charges coincided with targeted neighborhood interventions, including a Promise Neighborhood administered by the University of Maryland School of Social Work and a neighborhood participating in the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership initiative.
$0 $15,232 $152,774 $734,276 $1,927,023 $6,652 $87,279 $94,729 $1,080,423 $3,257,685 $0 $0 $174,461 $2,247,050 $3,732,546 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 00 to 01 02 to 04 05 to 09 10 to 14 15 to 19
Behavioral Health Hospital Charges in Southern Maryland by Age Group
FY 2017 FY 2015 FY 2013
In addition to zooming in to report spending by zip code, the fund map can analyze spending by age, race, or other demographics.
Race 2014 2015 2016 2017 Asian $8,113 $7,196 $5,271 $6,365 Black $2,487,084 $2,707,293 $2,411,472 $2,108,790 Hispanic $89,199 $97,785 $21,098 $80,267 Other $16,030 $91,084 $141,086 $101,271 Unknown $38,137 $278,576 $525,324 $758,117 White $8,745,429 $9,113,278 $8,622,029 $8,105,908 Grand Total $11,383,994 $12,295,213 $11,726,280 $11,160,719
Stark County, Ohio Medicaid Behavioral Health Charges by Race
A closer look
(i.e. Stark County has 17 distinct school districts)
strategies
synthesized requests for partner data so that grantee staff could provide detailed guidance when needed.
process.
purpose and goals of fund mapping; offered an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions and/or voice concerns; answered said questions and concerns with assistance from consultant.
educational service center helped to coordinate data from individual school districts).
decisions.
stakeholders over Year III of the grant to discuss how the final report will be utilized for sustainability. Plans are to hold a minimum of 1 meeting per quarter—with more meetings being scheduled as needed.
In Stark County, Ohio, behavioral health spending increased $2.7 million between FY 2014 and FY 2015 and then remained fairly stable throughout the survey period.
$30,804,762 $33,522,664 $33,483,795 $32,940,775 $28,000,000 $30,000,000 $32,000,000 $34,000,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Behavioral Health Spending: Children and Young Adults in Stark County, Ohio
$332.76 $364.10 $366.93 $364.41 $310.00 $320.00 $330.00 $340.00 $350.00 $360.00 $370.00 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Stark County, OH Behavioral Health Investments per Child and Young Adult
through school districts accounted for nearly half (43%) of total spending
passed through a state agency accounted for 36% of total and
through spending was 21% of total
County $7,649,869 County $7,710,446 County $6,836,785 County $6,869,265 Municipal $159,428 Municipal $161,839 Municipal $155,436 Municipal $151,209 State $12,127,699 State $12,995,029 State $12,743,663 State $11,777,429 Federal $70,243 School Districts $10,797,523 School Districts $12,655,350 School Districts $13,747,911 School Districts $14,142,873 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Stark County, OH Behavioral Health Spending Pass-Through Analysis: Agency Source
School District FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Canton City $4,503,819 $4,517,540 $4,598,903 $4,676,157 Canton Local $993,827 $935,960 Fairless $365,740 $300,718 $265,957 $311,903 Jackson $1,226,217 $1,193,244 $1,351,802 $1,476,982 Louisville $868,182 $983,304 $1,055,197 $1,093,990 Marlington $443,983 $488,911 $447,762 Osnaburg $1,120,468 $1,148,384 $1,083,330 $1,326,151 Perry $1,572,652 $1,397,750 $1,666,118 Plain $1,606,513 $1,656,985 $1,679,484 $1,725,369 Sandy Valley $296,957 $397,169 $400,570 $452,281 Tuslaw $365,643 $396,442 $473,330 $477,962 Total Reported Actual Behavioral Health Spending $10,797,523 $12,655,350 $13,747,911 $14,142,873
Home/Community
$16,201,589 Home/Community
$17,137,497 Home/Community
$16,874,180 Home/Community
$17,030,837 School-Based $10,797,523 School-Based $12,655,350 School-Based $13,747,911 School-Based $14,142,873 Institutional $3,805,650 Institutional $3,729,817 Institutional $2,861,704 Institutional $1,767,065 $0 $5,000,000
$10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
services delivered in the home/community or in schools steadily increased, accounting for 87.7% in FY 2014 and 94.6% in FY 2017.
residential treatment for foster children as well as an increase in reported spending
guidance counselors were factors in the relative decrease of services delivered in institutional settings.
$16,042,257 $17,816,657 $18,517,965 $17,933,235 $967,210 $1,137,691 $1,252,213 $1,590,466 $13,795,295 $14,568,316 $13,713,617 $13,417,074 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Other Children & Youth with Multiple Disabilities SOC Population: Age Group of Focus Estimate
Special Education Students
School District Number of Special Education Students Medicaid- Eligible Students Percent Medicaid- Eligible Alliance 515 344 66.8% Canton City 2,001 1,185 59.2% Canton Local 305 153 50.2% Fairless 302 137 45.4% Jackson 670 185 27.6% Lake 387 131 33.9% Louisville 466 193 41.4% Marlington 263 137 52.1% Massillon 669 381 57.0% Minerva 304 151 49.7% North Canton 557 143 25.7% Northwest 285 113 39.6% Osnaburg 111 52 46.8% Perry 499 216 43.3% Plain 809 368 45.5% Sandy Valley 224 116 51.8% Tuslaw 170 73 42.9% School District Total 8,537 4,078 47.8%
districts appeared to be billing Medicaid.
districts were Medicaid-eligible.
project staff identified a potential county FY 2017 cost pool for Medicaid-eligible services of $105.2 million, or spending on Special Education and School Psychologists and Psychological Services.
were enrolled in Canton City district, with 59% of those students Medicaid-eligible.
Education was $18.9 million, with $1.5 million for Special Education: Multiple Disabilities and $730,791 for Special Education: Severe Behavior Handicapped; while spending on Psychological Services was $1.1 million.
expenditures
Management rounded out top five at $3.4 million.
children dropped from $2.7 million in FY14 to $666,418 in FY17; and spending on psychiatric hospitalization dropped to $290,835 from $410,318 in FY14.
stable or increased.
services
ildin ingResil silie ience from Infancy through Develo lopment, Growth and
rment (B
as well as clinic based services and fund evidence-based direct services to address mental health concerns in children birth to 5 and their families, including
and Medicaid (pending)
have other insurance types: approximately 1/3 of the population are Medicaid recipients, 1/3 have commercial insurance, and 1/3 are covered by Tricare.
as older children and service utilization data may not reflect need or even usage
captured in the data set
Half of the recommendations will be supported by the fund map that is currently under development:
financing for early childhood initiatives in Southern Maryland.
through Part C and Child Find of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (ECHMC) and Enhanced Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (E-ECMHC).
BRIDGE Financing Plan Executive Report
strategies should inform the vision and design of the behavioral health fund map and strategic financing plan.
populations of focus?
through the fund map process?
integrate the fund mapping into an existing grant or initiative.
than one fiscal year. Consider timing of important reorganizations, program changes, or shift in responsibility.
initiatives?
characteristics or experiences of the population (e.g. youth at-risk
investments surveyed but should not necessarily limit the population under review. Example: The population of focus may be youth ages 11-21 with serious behavioral health needs, but the comprehensive review could focus on all children ages 0-21 with behavioral health needs.
location of the fund map, e.g., county or municipal funding.
programs in local agencies.
federal funding that supports local services or clients but is not passed through a local
community-based services waiver for children with autism.
philanthropic investments.
1. Work with partners to identify the services and programs to review for the fund map. 2. Use the Suggested Framework for Behavioral Health Programs to identify the programs from the framework that the fund map will review. a. For the fullest possible cross-system picture, the fund map could include all the programs in the Suggested Framework. b. If a comprehensive inventory is not feasible, program selection can be informed by the population of focus, targeted interventions and strategies. 3. With SOC population and strategies as criteria, identify any related and support services
4. Prepare a table like the Suggested Framework with the selected programs. 5. Customize the table for the jurisdiction with the appropriate program name for each program, service or intervention.
Suggested Framework for Program Inventory
EDU EDUCATION HE HEALTH HU HUMAN SERVICES PU PUBLIC SAFETY YOUTH/C /CAREER READINESS SS Early Head Start/Head Start Early Intervention & Special Education: Early Intervention Services for Infants and Toddlers & Preschool Special Education Early Childhood Mental Health/Early Intervention & Home Visiting Part C Housing: Continuum of Care; Homelessness Prevention & Homeless Services Juvenile Intake; Delinquency Prevention; Juvenile Diversion; EBPs e.g. MST/FFT Youth Service Bureaus Student Psychological Services/School-Based Mental Health & EBPs; Guidance Counselors Substance Abuse Prevention, Treatment & Recovery Foster Care: Residential Treatment Centers & Group Homes; Detention Alternatives; Disproportionate Minority Contact Out-of-School Time/Summer Learning Programs Special Education: Multiple Disability & Emotional/Behavioral Disability Classrooms/Services Community BH Services; e.g. Prevention; TCM, Wraparound; EBPs; Crisis Intervention Other Foster Care & Adoption; Family Preservation; Child Protective Services Juvenile Detention & Corrections, including RTCs Behavioral Health/Substance Abuse Services Mentoring & Tutoring Autism Services/Waivers Hospital & Medicaid Behavioral Health Charges Independent Living/Transition-Aged Youth Juvenile Parole & Probation; Aftercare Services for Transition-Aged Youth Youth in State Psychiatric Hospitals BH Services-Youth in Adult Corrections System Higher Ed-Counseling & BHServices Developmental Disabilities (DD) Community Services, ICFs & DD Centers
Sample Data Request to Developmental Disabilities Administration
E-mail to Fiscal Director fiscaldirector@dda.state.gov Potential CCs to Director director@dda.state.gov Fund Map Consultant consultant@gmail.com Draft E-mail Text: Dear Fiscal Director: As part of County Behavioral Health Agency’s System of Care (SOC) Expansion grant awarded by HHS-SAMHSA, the agency is currently finalizing an SOC strategic financing plan, including preparing a cradle to career and detailed behavioral health fund maps reporting on public investments in county children and youth and expenditures for children and youth under age 22 with behavioral health challenges. The process will assist us as we develop and implement a System of Care to help improve mental health outcomes and overall child and youth well-being in the county. We have reviewed the Department’s web site and have limited our request based on the publicly available data. This is the county’s first fund mapping project; therefore, we are seeking data for multiple fiscal years. We are requesting spending by funding source for fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017 on county residents under age 22 for Medicaid Waivers, Targeted Case Management and Residential Facilities. The attached spreadsheet provides the exact requests and should facilitate your response. To meet our timeline, we hope to receive the requested data by _______. However, we realize that Department staff have multiple time-sensitive demands, so please let us know if this timeframe is not suitable. We are working with a consultant on this project who is copied on this e-mail. Please let us know if there are any questions or additional information needed. Thank you very much for your assistance with this request. SOC Grantee Director of Business Operations
Sample Data Shell Attached to Request
County Behavioral Health Fund Mapping Project Cradle to Career Spending - Information Request State Department of Developmental Disabilities Spending on County Residents Under Age 22 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Federal Funds State Funds Federal FundsState Funds Federal Funds State Funds Community-Based Services Medicaid Waivers Individual Options Level One Self-Empowerment Life Funding Transitions Developmental Disabilities Targeted Case Management Residential Facilities Developmental Centers Intermediate Care Facilities
Sample Data Request to Behavioral Health Administration
E-mail to Fiscal Director fiscaldirector@bha.state.gov Potential CCs to Director director@bha.state.gov Fund Map Consultant consultant@gmail.com Draft E-mail Text: Dear Fiscal Director: As part of County Behavioral Health Agency’s System of Care (SOC) Expansion grant awarded by HHS-SAMHSA, the agency is currently finalizing an SOC strategic financing plan, including preparing a cradle to career and detailed behavioral health fund maps reporting on public investments in county children and youth and expenditures for children and youth under age 22 with behavioral health challenges. The process will assist us as we develop and implement a System of Care to help improve mental health outcomes and overall child and youth well-being in the county. We would very much appreciate your assistance in providing information on county residents under age 22 placed in state psychiatric facilities as outlined below and on the attached spreadsheet. We have reviewed the Department’s web site and have limited our request based on the publicly available data. This is the county’s first fund mapping project; therefore, we are seeking data for multiple fiscal years. We are requesting spending for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 on county residents under age 22 placed in state psychiatric facilities. We understand that spending data may not be reported in this manner. We are additionally requesting data on number of county residents under age 22, average length of stay and per diem data. The attached spreadsheet provides the exact requests. To meet our timeline, we hope to receive the requested data by _______. However, we realize that Department staff have multiple time-sensitive demands, so please let us know if this timeframe is not suitable. We are working with a consultant on this project who is copied on this e-mail. Please let us know if there are any questions
SOC Grantee Director of Business Operations State agencies may not track or report certain spending by county and age, for example children and youth placed in state psychiatric hospitals. Request number of children placed, average length of stay and per diem data to calculate cost. Per diem data are often reported in annual report for state psychiatric hospital agency.
Sample Data Shell Attached to Request
Behavioral Health Fund Mapping Information Request State Department of Behavioral Health State Psychiatric Hospitals Spending on County residents under age 22 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 State Regional Psychiatric Hospitals Hospital A Hospital B Hospital C Hospital D Data for County residents under age 22 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Number Treated ALOS Per Diem Number Treated ALOS Per Diem Number Treated ALOS Per Diem State Regional Psychiatric Hospitals Hospital A Hospital B Hospital C Hospital D
Behavioral Health Fund Mapping Information Request Medicaid Charges for County Residents Under Age 19 Client/Patient Demographic Information Additional Service Information Fiscal Year Charge AmountService Type Primary DiagnosisAge/Age Group Gender Race Zip Code Service Unit Number of Units
FY 2015 Actual Spending Federal State Local TOTAL Department of Health $27,932,206 $4,899,550 $32,831,756 Behavioral Health Administration $8,229 $3,138,697 $3,146,926 State Psychiatric Centers $8,229 $3,138,697 $3,146,926 Hospital A $180 $1,223,576 $1,223,756 Hospital B $5,902 $1,260,902 $1,266,804 Hospital C $2,147 $654,219 $656,366 Developmental Disabilities Administration $472,113 $1,760,853 $2,232,966 Transitioning Youth Program $359,040 $992,199 $1,351,239 Community Services for Residents Under Age 20 $91,868 $253,875 $345,743 Residents Under 20 Placed in Developmental Disability Center $21,206 $514,778 $535,984 Family Health Administration $27,451,864 $27,451,864 WIC Administrative Award Grant to Provider $1,697,000 $1,697,000 WIC Breast Feeding Peer Counselor Program $87,526 $87,526 WIC Check Redemptions $25,667,338 $25,667,338 See MA Worksheet for Medicaid data
worksheet for each agency source.
number of state and local agencies, it may work to consolidate state and local agencies into one worksheet each.
format for each fiscal year being surveyed in the fund map.
Sample Master Worksheet for Pivot Tables
elements from the worksheets need to be gathered
worksheet that is arrayed to produce pivot tables to report findings.
for each funding source, i.e., federal, state, local, philanthropic, for the program needs to be reported on a distinct row. Use the FYXX Fund Source to denote the funding source for that row’s spending amount.
Program/Service FY15 Fund Source FY15 Amount Function Subfunction Department Division/Agency Outcome Area State Psychiatric Hospital A Federal $180 Health Behavioral Health Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration Healthy Children & Youth State Psychiatric Hospital A State $1,223,576 Health Behavioral Health Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration Healthy Children & Youth State Psychiatric Hospital B Federal $5,902 Health Behavioral Health Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration Healthy Children & Youth State Psychiatric Hospital B State $1,260,902 Health Behavioral Health Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration Healthy Children & Youth State Psychiatric Hospital C Federal $2,147 Health Behavioral Health Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration Healthy Children & Youth State Psychiatric Hospital C State $654,219 Health Behavioral Health Department of Health Behavioral Health Administration Healthy Children & Youth Transitioning Youth Program Federal $359,040 Health Developmental Disabilities Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Administration Healthy Children & Youth Transitioning Youth Program State $992,199 Developmental Disabilities Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Administration Healthy Children & Youth Community Services for Residents Under Age 20 Federal $91,868 Health Developmental Disabilities Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Administration Healthy Children & Youth Community Services for Residents Under Age 20 State $253,875 Developmental Disabilities Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Administration Healthy Children & Youth Residents Under 20 Placed in Developmental Disability Center Federal $21,206 Health Developmental Disabilities Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Administration Healthy Children & Youth Residents Under 20 Placed in Developmental Disability Center State $514,778 Health Developmental Disabilities Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Administration Healthy Children & Youth WIC Administrative Award Grant to Provider Federal $1,697,000 Health Maternal & Child Health Department of Health Family Health Administration Healthy Births WIC Breast Feeding Peer Counselor Program Federal $87,526 Health Maternal & Child Health Department of Health Family Health Administration Healthy Births WIC Check Redemptions Federal $25,667,338 Health Maternal & Child Health Department of Health Family Health Administration Healthy Births
Don’t forget about Medicaid Reimbursement in Schools!
for schools, with $3.3 billion in claims for school-based health services and $1.2 billion in claims for related administrative activities.
Plan (IEP) or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) for Infants and Toddlers when certain criteria are met. Medicaid will also reimburse evaluations to identify health-related needs for an IEP or IFSP and related administrative
Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) program are also reimbursed through Medicaid. These services provided through EPSDT may be claimed through Medicaid regardless of whether the service is specified as an eligible service in the Medicaid state plan.
Data are total claims and include state and local match and do not represent amount of federal reimbursement. Source: “Medicaid in Schools,” April 2018, MACPAC. See Appendix, Table 1 for a breakout of claims by state by services and administrative
Priorities, Appendix, Table 1 for total claims and amount of federal reimbursement. Alabama $38,193,833 Illinios $256,321,013 Montana $59,526,603 Rhode Island $55,329,718 Alaska $2,627,452 Indiana $19,015,310 Nebraska $23,976,445 South Carolina $36,946,424 Arizona $86,833,857 Iowa $104,441,037 Nevada $16,748,091 South Dakota $6,994,825 Arkansas $77,313,812 Kansas $37,846,133 New Hampshire $52,311,025 Tennessee $0 California $283,175,614 Kentucky $38,246,052 New Jersey $242,904,181 Texas $504,157,561 Colorado $83,389,444 Louisiana $0 New Mexico $37,774,055 Utah $40,804,326 Connecticut $33,050,078 Maine $43,753,424 New York $261,796,456 Vermont $6,998 Delaware $6,538,031 Maryland $78,444,393 North Carolina $105,954,540 Virginia $63,641,271 District of Columbia $83,383,770 Massachusetts $185,726,732 North Dakota $930,685 Washington $90,548,015 Florida $268,585,633 Michigan $252,523,358 Ohio $232,191,451 West Virginia $7,913,361 Georgia $54,273,490 Minnesota $104,116,535 Oklahoma $583,530 Wisconsin $169,676,376 Hawaii $481,562 Mississippi $12,768,699 Oregon $5,507,421 Wyoming $0 Idaho $37,126,054 Missouri $58,713,391 Pennsylvania $219,555,656
column labels in the header row and all columns and rows. Click Insert on the Excel menu bar, and then click Pivot Table. To insert the pivot table, in a new worksheet, which is recommended, click OK.
filter, e.g., Division/Agency. The pivot table tabulates and displays the agency names as distinct rows. In the Pivot Table Fields option column, Division/Agency populates the Rows box.
for each agency in a separate column and populates the Values box with the FYXX Amounts label.
box in Pivot Table Fields option column. To report the amounts in separate columns, drag and drop the drop-down menu label for each year from the Rows box to the Values option box.
settings for the reporting of the amount, click the drop-down menu label in the Values box in Pivot Table Fields option column, then click Value Field Settings, and select Sum.
OK twice.
technical assistance and reports and resource guides with financing strategies, including potential funding sources for SOC and analyzing SOC return on investment.
Effective Financing Strategies for Systems of Care: Examples from the Field, which included multiple sustainability strategies, objectives and components.