Department of Public Welfare (DPW)

Transcription

1 Department of Public Welfare (DPW) Office of Income Maintenance Electronic Benefits Transfer Card Risk Management Report Out-of-State Residency Review FISCAL YEAR June 2013 (March, April and May 2013 Transactions) Issue Date: 9/15/2013 The information found within this report is for informational purposes only. The results cover a specific period of time and should not to be used to extrapolate the results for a full year.

2 The June 2013 Cohort for the residency review covers activity for contiguous and non-contiguous states. 687* cases were flagged based on three months of exclusive out-of-state EBT card use. The three months used for this review cycle were March, April and May The table below displays the states with the highest levels of transaction activity related to the flagged cases. * The 687 flagged cases represent less than 1% of the statewide caseload for the time period. Flagged Cases Out of State Use of EBT Cards Top 10 States by Transaction Activity Rank State Transactions Rank State Transactions 1. Florida 2, Ohio New York 2, South Carolina New Jersey 1, Georgia Maryland 1, Delaware North Carolina Virginia 558 The 687 flagged cases were analyzed and grouped into one of three categories based on the state(s) in which the benefits were used. Cases were flagged for benefit use in a contiguous state, a non-contiguous state or both*. The results of the analysis are shown in the chart below at left. The chart below at right focuses on the amount of money that was being used out of state by each of the flagged cases over the 3 month period. Flagged Cases by Type EBT Benefits Used Out of State Non-Contiguous State Contiguous State Both NC and C States 27 (4%) $1,000 or Greater 151 (22%) 328 (48%) 332 (48%) $600 - $ (25%) $200 - $ (45%) Less Than $ (8%) * Cases flagged for both contiguous and non-contiguous state use will be grouped into the contiguous state group for the remainder of this report. 2

3 The flagged cases were sent to the appropriate County Assistance Office (CAO) for further analysis. Based on the case review done at the CAO, flagged cases were grouped into one of three categories. The chart below shows the outcome for the 687 flagged cases broken out by non-contiguous and contiguous cases. A geographic analysis by county for the Closed Due to Review and the Residency Verified subsets will be illustrated on pages 4 and 5 respectively. Outcome of Cases from June 2013 Cohort Flagged Non-Contiguous State Cases (N = 332) Flagged Contiguous State Cases (N = 355) Total Flagged Cases (N = 687) Already Closed* 123 (37.0%) 79 (22.3%) 202 (29.4%) Residency Verified 65 (19.6%) 158 (44.5%) 223 (32.5%) Closed Due to Review 144 (43.4%) 118 (33.2%) 262 (38.1%) *Represents cases that closed during the period between the identification of flagged cases and beginning of CAO residency review. Closures can be attributed to the normal case management functions of the CAO. All 262 Closed Due to Review cases, both contiguous flagged and non-contiguous flagged, involved cost avoidance for SNAP and/or Cash programs. The total cost avoidance due to the residency review is $415,056. This calculation is based on the Office of Inspector General methodology of multiplying the monthly benefit at time of closing times 6 months and excludes MA benefits. The chart below at left shows the cost avoidance impact by program. Cost Avoidance by Program Cost Avoidance Fast Facts Cash, $25,986 (6%) Average Amount per Case - $1,584 SNAP $389,070 (94%) Total Dollars - $415,056 Range - $90 to $6,990 39% (102) of the closed cases had a cost avoidance amount of $1,200 3

4 Geographic Comparison of Cases Closed Due to Review The maps below illustrate the percentage of Cases Closed Due to Review by county for the non-contiguous cases and the contiguous cases. There were 11 counties in the non-contiguous set that had a percentage of greater than 66.7%. By comparison, the contiguous set only had 2 counties that reached that mark. The contiguous case map shows a high number of low and moderate percentages along the perimeter of the state. 4

5 Geographic Comparison of Residency Verified Cases The maps below illustrate the percentage of Residency Verified cases by county for the non-contiguous cases and the contiguous cases. There were 8 counties in the non-contiguous set that had a percentage of greater than 33.3%. By comparison, the contiguous set had 32 counties that reached that mark. The contiguous case map shows a high number of moderate and high percentages in rural counties along the perimeter of the state. 5

6 Year to Date Numbers by Month Cases Closed Due to Review Non-Contiguous Cases Contiguous Cases Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun YTD Totals: Non-Contiguous 2,298 Contiguous 2,590 All 4,888 % Closed due to Review Non-Contiguous Cases Contiguous Cases 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 43.4% 33.2% YTD Averages: Non-Contiguous 53.5% Contiguous 39.8% All % Cost Avoidance Dollars Non-Contiguous Cases Contiguous Cases $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun YTD Totals: Non-Contiguous - $3,562,890 Contiguous - $3,698,802 All - $7,261,692 6